Call to Action for Muslims

[waltappel 1]

Quote

If OIL were the SOLE reason, then we would've left Saddam in power and sponsored a lift of the sanctions and the Oil-for-food program.

Could be, but wouldn't that have left him free to see all the oil he could to China?

Walt

[sundevil777 102]

It is a world market. Doesn't matter who China gets it from as long as they aren't boycotts against selling or buying from certain countries.

The war was not about oil, but the global economy depends on the flow of oil (unfortunately but so it is). Remember not so many years ago when tankers were getting attacked in the Persian Gulf? That sort of shit can put a lot of people out of work and worse. Then we'd have everyone asking why we didn't do more to protect our national interests.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Terrorism hurts us all.

I agree. I think too many people forget that when terrorism happens to accomplish our goals; it's still wrong.

So the Founding Fathers were wrong?

Sorry, guys. Terrorist is a label you apply to an enemy employing differing tactics to fight you.

'Shock and Awe,' anyone?

[Erroll 80]

Quote

>p.s. This fatwah also applies to all non-Muslims too.

Unless the terrorists in question are fighting our enemies. In which case they are brave freedom fighters willing to give their life for freedom.

Interesting observation. Case in point:- Nelson Mandela is credited with having decided that the African National Congress should deviate from their campaign of non-violence during the early days of apartheid. He was the first commander of Umkontho wi Sizwe, The Spear of the Nation. This was the military wing of the ANC, responsible for many attrocities, including several bomb attacks on innocent civilians. He was considered a dangerous terrorist by many, not only in South Africa. Today he is a Nobel Peace Prize laureate and one of the most revered human beings in the world.

[crozby 0]

Quote

If OIL were the SOLE reason, then we would've left Saddam in power and sponsored a lift of the sanctions and the Oil-for-food program.

It wasn't the SOLE reason, amongst others were finding a new Middle East base post Saudi.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

If OIL were the SOLE reason, then we would've left Saddam in power and sponsored a lift of the sanctions and the Oil-for-food program.

Could be, but wouldn't that have left him free to see all the oil he could to China?

Walt

That's not exactly how it works. But you bring up one point. Saddam, for all his "evil" was a stabalizing element in the region. That kept oil prices low and he would have been free to increase his production capacity, which would've helped keep prices low. That would've made it easier for China for sure.

Now, if under those circumstances we wanted to put the screws to ROC, then we would've collaborated with Saddam and the House of Saud collectively, without military intervention, to increase the price of oil.

I believe we did something similar with the Saudis during the cold war to lessen the cost of oil, in order to strain the USSR in its own exports during that time.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

They certainly aren't. But I will point openly at all followers, citing that they do not do enough to speak out against, and take action against those that destroy the image of their religion. The religion is not solely based on "peace", no, it is, indeed, just as much a faith based on submission as well.

When you just look at that quote, all by itself, it really addresses every religion. I wonder if you also openly point at members of those other religions?

[apley 0]

Quote

Quote

I wasn't aware that all followers of the Muslim faith were terrorists.

They certainly aren't. But I will point openly at all followers, citing that they do not do enough to speak out against, and take action against those that destroy the image of their religion. The religion is not solely based on "peace", no, it is, indeed, just as much a faith based on submission as well.

of course, christianity has no history of this behavior... can you say "religious right", which is neither.

gawd told me to hate you.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Funny you should say that. I remember the first time I watched the 700 Club that my jaw hit the floor when the good Rev, while praying, started talking about bombing people and going to war.

While I can somewhat stomach the whole 'God bless America' when it comes to war (which most Xtian countries do), hearing it within a prayer made me wonder WTF kind of christianity was practiced here.

I realize that the TV evangelists are considered a joke by most USians, but thats cos you're on the inside.

Lets see :

Religious leaders publicly calling for violence: Check

Political leaders publicly referring to violence, religion and using moral justification: Check

Long history of violence: check

Publicly silent moderate religious majority: check

International acts of "terrorism" (according to your ideology): check


Urm. Which country am I talking about again?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[wmw999 2,583]

Quote

the good Rev, while praying, started talking about bombing people and going to war.

Mark Twain had something to say about that, over a hundred years earlier. He wrote "The War Prayer:"
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

the good Rev, while praying, started talking about bombing people and going to war.

Mark Twain had something to say about that, over a hundred years earlier. He wrote "The War Prayer:"
"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

Wendy W.

The Holy Grail did it better and in fewer words, but I best this was the inspiration.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Cudlo 0]

Quote

Quote

>Terrorism hurts us all.

I agree. I think too many people forget that when terrorism happens to accomplish our goals; it's still wrong.

So the Founding Fathers were wrong?

Sorry, guys. Terrorist is a label you apply to an enemy employing differing tactics to fight you.

'Shock and Awe,' anyone?

Yes. They are different tactics indeed. Tactics that rely upon terrorizing men, woman, and children who are not combatants. Setting off bombs on buses loaded with kids. Nice tactic. Setting off bombs on trains loaded with people going to work. Nice tactic. And, of course, crashing planes into office buildings. Very nice tactic. The problem I see is that you look at these persons as soldiers. They are NOT soldiers. A soldier does not strap a bomb to a child then send him into a crowd. A soldier attacks the military component of his enemy. Does everything always go according to plan? No, of course not. This is the real world where shit happens and things go wrong. The difference lies in intention and after thought. If it is your intention to kill civilians, then you are a terrorist. If the above list of tactics are on your to do list, then you are a terrorist.

If you can not honestly tell the difference between a soldier and a terrorist, then I have some choice words for you that are currently banned under the "No Personal Attacks" category.

_________________________________________
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wasn't aware that all followers of the Muslim faith were terrorists.

They certainly aren't. But I will point openly at all followers, citing that they do not do enough to speak out against, and take action against those that destroy the image of their religion. The religion is not solely based on "peace", no, it is, indeed, just as much a faith based on submission as well.

of course, christianity has no history of this behavior... can you say "religious right", which is neither.

gawd told me to hate you.

If you want to get into the history of it, the Moors invaded Europe before the first Christianic crusade. They almost captured Paris.

Meanwhile, I fully agree that each sect has its fundamentalists that smear the goodness of the body. However, the major difference here is that the fundamentalists and even a significant portion of the main body of the Islamic faith have pushed an entire region of the world into a regression for the past 400+ years.

These Mullahs all have their own little sliver of society which they pick from and scream to solely to enhance their own standing. What's worse is that they don't even agree with each other all that often. One common factor they share is they preach a forced submission to a way of life dictated by faith which is not unified. Not even hardcore Catholics are that oppressive. Pope John Paul II never gave an edict stating that things should be a certain way. He stayed in the realm of ideas, and how faith can grow, or be shaped by those ideas, and vice versa. It was from those ideas that he created a policy for a church. These ideas were offered as a way of life for those to strive for, not "follow the way or get your head chopped off".

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[kelpdiver 2]

sorry the point went whizzing over your head - the Revolutionaries were terrorists. But since we're on that side, Freedom Fighters.

Civilians have been part of warfare since WWII. These Arabs are hardly the first to go after them. If you don't know American history that well, I've got my own words for you.

Nothing wrong with hating the enemy. But saying their methods are 'wrong' is kind of pointless, don't you think? I'm quite sure they don't like our methods of using superior technology and training to kill them remotely, either.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

sorry the point went whizzing over your head - the Revolutionaries were terrorists. But since we're on that side, Freedom Fighters.

Civilians have been part of warfare since WWII. These Arabs are hardly the first to go after them. If you don't know American history that well, I've got my own words for you.

Nothing wrong with hating the enemy. But saying their methods are 'wrong' is kind of pointless, don't you think? I'm quite sure they don't like our methods of using superior technology and training to kill them remotely, either.

Terrorist? Really? By all means, I'd like to see your cite on this one.

You're being deliberately obtuse. The other poster is defining terrorism as DELIBERATELY waging war on non-combatatants, and you are trying to equate that with the Revolutionaries not following the "ranked volley" warfare of the British

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

You're being deliberately obtuse. The other poster is defining terrorism as DELIBERATELY waging war on non-combatatants, and you are trying to equate that with the Revolutionaries not following the "ranked volley" warfare of the British

In that case the attack on the USS Cole was not an act of terrorism. This holds true of any military target.

Under the common definition of terrorism US revolutionaries would be considered terrorists, or at the very least: insurgents - more so than Iraqiis, since an insurgency is aggression against an official governing group, and the US have called iraqis insurgents from before there was any official governing going on.

Either way, the original poster would be correct that its merely a matter of perspective.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[waltappel 1]

Two tidbits from the FBI clicky:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism.


Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)


Walt

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

Two tidbits from the FBI clicky:

There is no single, universally accepted definition of terrorism.


Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)


Walt[/reply

Thanks Walt, that's the definition that I was referring to.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

• Quote

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Thanks Walt, that's the definition that I was referring to.

I'm always happy to add fuel to the fire!

Walt

[Cudlo 0]

Quote

sorry the point went whizzing over your head - the Revolutionaries were terrorists. But since we're on that side, Freedom Fighters.

Civilians have been part of warfare since WWII. These Arabs are hardly the first to go after them. If you don't know American history that well, I've got my own words for you.

Nothing wrong with hating the enemy. But saying their methods are 'wrong' is kind of pointless, don't you think? I'm quite sure they don't like our methods of using superior technology and training to kill them remotely, either.

Yay for education time. A) We had plenty of soldiers using the traditional open field warfare. B) I can only assume you are referring to the swamp foxes as "revolutionairy war terrorists".

Refering to A) Open field warfare against the British was suicide. The Brits didn't lose at open field.

Refering to B) The most obvious problem with your reasoning is that you are ignoring what targets these men were attacking. When you have a combination of guerilla warfare tactics learned during the French/Indian war, clothing that consisted primarily of dark colors (blacks, browns, greens), and rifle bored weapons designed for hunting you become quite lethal in non-conventional warfare. In war you would be an idiot not to use your strenghts angainst the enemies weaknesses. Its how you win. Unconventional Warfare is an accepted practice (current specialty of US Army Special Forces). You need to learn the difference between war and murder. In the revolutionairy war when British supply depots, supply ships, etc were intentionally targetted, that is tactics. Now.. if these men had gotten themselves on a ship, went to the UK, and started killing civilians left and right THEN they would be terrorists.
soldier vs soldier = war
anything vs civilian = murder

May I educate you on any other topics? Plenty of books here to refer to as I work at a K-12 private school.

P.S. Before you reply, read my sig line.

_________________________________________
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

May I educate you on any other topics? Plenty of books here to refer to as I work at a K-12 private school.

Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “...the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)

This would negate the conclusion of your post.

We could choose a more interesting and difficult target: http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=68 The american civil war and the terrorist actions of the partisans. Select your side: north or south, both had their share of regular fighers and irregulars.

Additionally, while your discussion of point B is questionable in it's conclusion (when placed alongside the description of terrorism I refer to and posted by Watlapel), to fit your model the Al Quiada attack on the USS Cole would not be considered an act of terrorism.

We can play with semantics as much as you'd like, the original posters point was that terrorism is a matter of perspective. There are those who feel Palestine is doing the only thing it can in its war against an aggressive, well funded and well armed Israel. There are those who believe the IRA are selling out to the UK Government and who will continue to fight against the British.

There is little difference between the position the US/UK troops in Iraq are facing vs the English troops during the revolutionary war.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Cudlo 0]

i always thought intentionally targetting civilians as "unlawful use of force and violence"...

But... if I am the only person in the world who believes specifically attacking civilian populations is without question an act of terrorism then I will just sit here and be crazy because there is no way in HELL I will ever see it as anything else.

Quote

There are those who feel Palestine is doing the only thing it can in its war against an aggressive, well funded and well armed Israel. There are those who believe the IRA are selling out to the UK Government and who will continue to fight against the British.

And there are people who think aliens killed JFK, whats your point?

_________________________________________
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard

[AlexCrowley 0]

Quote

And there are people who think aliens killed JFK, whats your point?

As someone who works in a school I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the point.

But lets follow you down the narrow avenue of your thoughts: Intentionally targeting civilians would be ONE way of meeting the definition of 'unlawful use of force and violence'.

Now, my educated and intelligent friend, could you also say that blowing up a military installation is also 'unlawful use of force and violence'? You ignored my statement about the attack on the USS Cole, by your definition this was not a terrorist attack.

If you can accept that it *was* a terrorist attack then logic dictates that attacking military targets can be considered terrorism when performed by a group of ideologically motivated individuals without a specific allegiance to a country (in otherwords, not part of some standing army).

If you can accept that fact, then the original poster's comment about the US revolutionaries is also true, which was in regards to perspective.

Now, lets examine the rest of your tutorial on warfare.

Referring to A: Yes, suicide, so: if you know that outright war is suicide you dont fight a war on the battlefield. BTW What does this have to do with anything? only that the revolutionaries played fair for the most part? Um ok.

Referring to b: It is very easy to argue that they used guerilla warfare and would have been considered terrorists by those in power and those who were happy with the status quo. Which brings us back to my original point, which you didn't understand. I hope that this post isnt too complex for you.

To switch subjects:
Bodycount is not the primary goal of terrorism, it is almost always incidental to the real motivation for the act. To bring it down to a level of violence misses the point entirely and leads to stupid thoughts like 'gutless murdering thugs' and 'mindless animals'.

While an act of murder may also be an act of terrorism, murder itself is not terrorism. As for your comment "am I the only person in the world who believes spefcifically attacking civilian populations is without question an act of terrorism...". Of course not, but neither is it the ONLY kind of terrorist act, which is the argument that you're apparently promoting.

Lets spin it around, during the Vietnam war there were many cases of civilians performing terrorist style attacks on US soldiers (women/kids with bombs strapped to them, bombing bars, etc, kinda like the stuff you mentioned above). Is this warfare or terrorism? Is it both?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Cudlo 0]

Quote

As someone who works in a school I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand the point.

Yes, I fully understand that there are always going to be persons who believe in something no matter how ridiculous. I will attempt in the future to avoid sardonic responses since you seemed to miss it.

Quote

But lets follow you down the narrow avenue of your thoughts

When directly addressing parts of someone's message it will tend to come out narrow, unless you want to spend 3 hours addressing every aspect of every issue.

Quote

Now, my educated and intelligent friend, could you also say that blowing up a military installation is also 'unlawful use of force and violence'? You ignored my statement about the attack on the USS Cole, by your definition this was not a terrorist attack.

Your first point is a little broad, destroying enemy military installations with NBC weaponry could easily be considered 'unlawful use of force and violence' but not necessarily terrorism. There are however plenty of ways to destroy a military installation with a reasonable amount of force. What is reasonable is of course open for debate.

As for the USS Cole

Quote

The new intifada and the attack on the Cole both serve, in different ways, as object lessons of what military theorists call “asymmetric warfare”, the use of unconventional tactics to counter the overwhelming conventional military superiority of an adversary. The concept has mostly been refined by US strategists, working within the debate on the “revolution in military affairs” (RMA): the US has an overwhelming technological superiority over the conventional military forces of virtually any conceivable adversary, but remains vulnerable to certain types of unconventional response: terrorist attacks, weapons of mass destruction, or unpredictable actions in unpredictable places, like the attack on the Cole in Aden. Depending on one’s definition, asymmetric warfare includes conventional terrorism, classic guerrilla war and the use of weapons of mass destruction, but also such innovative approaches as cyber-attacks and information warfare

"or unpredictable actions in unpredictable places, like the attack on the Cole in Aden." Kind of a toss up on that one.
But speaking hypothetically, if two airforce jocks flew into another countries air space without orders and destroyed a military installation then they would rightfully be charged with murder and various other crimes. Not sure if you feel that addressed your point but its the best I can do at 1:30am. Moving on.

Quote

If you can accept that it *was* a terrorist attack then logic dictates that attacking military targets can be considered terrorism when performed by a group of ideologically motivated individuals without a specific allegiance to a country (in otherwords, not part of some standing army).

I would easily accept that violent action against a target belonging to a military that is not currently posing a threat to yourself, your group, or your country is a terrorist action. This however, does not apply to British targets during the revolutionairy war, as they posed a clear and present danger.

Quote

Referring to A: Yes, suicide, so: if you know that outright war is suicide you dont fight a war on the battlefield. BTW What does this have to do with anything? only that the revolutionaries played fair for the most part? Um ok.

Sorry if that was confusing, mid rant I addressed another poster's comments regarding American willingness to engage in open field warfare with the British. I will try to leave more footnotes if that will help you.

Quote

Referring to b: It is very easy to argue that they used guerilla warfare and would have been considered terrorists by those in power and those who were happy with the status quo. Which brings us back to my original point, which you didn't understand. I hope that this post isnt too complex for you.

Don't worry. You would need a much larger vocabulary to construct a post that I would not understand. And yes, we are getting back to the main point in that I believe there is a distinct line between military warfare and terrorism and you disagree.

Quote

Bodycount is not the primary goal of terrorism, it is almost always incidental to the real motivation for the act. To bring it down to a level of violence misses the point entirely and leads to stupid thoughts like 'gutless murdering thugs' and 'mindless animals'.

If the point were simply to press a political idea through death but regardless of body count then it would be far simpler to just knife someone. However, it is apparent that the actual point is to press a political idea with the highest body count possible thus making a larger statement.

Quote

While an act of murder may also be an act of terrorism, murder itself is not terrorism.

You must be as tired as I am. Obviously, not every murder is an act of terrorism. However, an act of terrorism where at least 1 person dies is murder.

Quote

Lets spin it around, during the Vietnam war there were many cases of civilians performing terrorist style attacks on US soldiers (women/kids with bombs strapped to them, bombing bars, etc, kinda like the stuff you mentioned above). Is this warfare or terrorism? Is it both?

Regardless of the target, strapping a bomb to a child and using him/her as a weapon is murder. As for women with bombs attacking military targets, well that is unconventional warfare. It isn't pretty, and I don't have to like it being done, but I don't believe it qualifies as terrorism. As for attacking a bar, I will admit that it is kind of both. The soldiers being there makes the location a target of opportunity. If the only persons in the bar are soldiers, then it is warfare. If there are also civilians in the bar then it becomes a bit of both as it has two effects. 1. It kills soldiers. Warfare. 2. It kills civilians, effecting their decisions regarding the (war, violence, however you want to characterize it) around them.

Anything else?

_________________________________________
"People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid." - Kierkegaard

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

May I educate you on any other topics? Plenty of books here to refer to as I work at a K-12 private school.

Well that sure explains it. You're living in the grade school version of history. The one where one's home country rarely does wrong. Just look at the more recent Japanese books in their accounting of WWII practices for some good illustration.

In the real world, the US POV is not the only one, just our preferred one.