Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

to me a terrorist is a poor man fighting back how ever they can.

I do not understand how people cannot understand why the middle east is very pissed off about what has happened to them over the Last few hundred years.

The Last few years has been business as usual.

Indirectely we are involved. We vote the government in power who carries through with the policy.

And we are as much an innocent bystander as a person in Iraq .

I do not know what blinds us. But it has to end.

This war will have chapeters on our soil.

So do not be shocked when it does happen again.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I disagree in a number of levels.

1- Does it include massacring civilians? How about suicide bombing an school bus, or an school for that matter?
Ghandi didn't do any of the above, and got the British out.
So the methods do count.

2- What have happened to them?
In the 7th century the Arabs spilled all over the middle east. They forced to convert entire etnic Groups, and even today there are Languages that are forbiden from the Arab schools and media, like the Tuareg dialects in Argelia. The Arabs waged and still wage a cultural asimilation war on the etnic Groups that fell under their boots. You can see this more clearly in Sudan. Yet very little of these makes the news.

3- I agree.

4- Yes, and does that justify an attack on civilians? How about nuking Mecca because of the support that the Saudis give to Al Qaeda and company? It cuts both ways.

5- ?

6- I agree. Its time we realize what a clear and present danger Islam is. We don't have to wait until a nuke goes off in New York. Then it will be too late.

7- I agree. Its almost impossible to keep terrorists away from the continental US. They will get through sooner or later. I mean with a nuke. Their cells are probably already in.

8- War is war. What shock is not the attack, but their intended target, that is, civilians, including women and children.


Yes, it will likely happen again, so I say to strike first before it happens.
Islamic terrorism is a deadly enemy that will not give up or give in, so the only way is to defeat them by using a two prongued attack:
- Destroy their ideology, by taking Mecca and Medina out of the picture. Such a destruction will show them that their god doesn't really exists, since he cannot defend their own holy places, thus demoralizing their followship.
- Support secularism in the Muslim world. Since Islam is not capable of modernizing like other religions did in the 20th century, then Islam have to be eliminated, by making the Muslim world secular, eliminating the power of the religious factions and their hold on education, culture, etc.

You have to realize that Islam will not reform by itself, because any secular or liberal muslim is chased out of his country or killed. Then they try to show us what they call "moderate muslims", which are nothing more than a couple guys they keep for western media consumption, but if you look into their ideas you see that they are more radicals than any religious fundy in the West.

Basicly, to be moderate in Islam you can't be muslim. Thus the conclusion is that there are Arab Moderates (seculars), but not Muslim Moderates (religious).
Arab and Muslim are not interchangeable terms.
So the problem is with Islam the religion, not with the etnic Groups that happen to be Muslim. You take away their religion, re-program then eliminating all those religious schools and instituing secular education like in the West, and a couple generations the so-called "clash of civilizations" will be a thing of the past.

Notice that using the term "clash of civilizations" equals recognizing Islam as an integral part of their civilization, which it is today, but it doesn't have to be tomorrow. Int he end, a Muslim from Saudi Arabia have as much in commun with a Muslim from Indonesia as a Christian from France have with a Christian from Taiwan (I.e. very little besides religion)

But they will always try to make us believe that they are an integral unity. Don't swallow that.

Then we come to the nasties part of Islam. They always say that the West discriminate them. But what they don't tell you, its how racist they are even between themselves. Despite the fact the Islam as a religion speaks against discrimination, racial discrimination its an integral part of their culture. This shouldn't surprise us, since it was the same way in the West, with Christianism speaking against discrimination, but slavery surviving all the way to the late 19th century, and racial discrimination being official until the 1960's.
In the Muslim world, the Arabs are the uber etnic group, they discriminate others Muslims, not to mention non-muslims. Within the Arabs, the Gulf Arabs are to top dogs. They believe that their god have blessed them with oil because of their rightiouness, and so they feel superiors. Then come the Irakis, Jordans, Syrians, and Egytians, in that order. Then a big jump down, and come the other North African Arabs. Another empty slot, and come the Sudanese. The Palestians are way below. Most Arabs dislike them, and only use them to fight Israel. The Iranis are not Arabs, and are not Sunnis, but they are not too far down in their "scale". The Yemenites are a Groups that I have yet to find out where they fit in the Arab picture. The Yemenites themselves think that they are the "true" Arabs, because the speak a form of Arabic closer to the the one used to write the Koran, and appearenly for this reason all the Gulf Arabs hate them, but I'm not quite sure whether they hate them because they think that the Yemenites are right, or because they think that the Yemenites are lower in the "Arab scale" and are no more than a bunch of arrogant pricks.
Anyway, I'll let you know when I find out.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

And so acted the Christians. Ask the (south american) Indians. And don't forget the horrors of the Crusades where thousands and thousands of innocent arab civilians were slaughtered by Christians because of their believes ("deus vult!"). This horror is still deeply imbedded into the arab world and that is why Bushs use of the word "crusade against evil" has caused the widespread fear that it is in reality a "crusade against the arab world" with all the horrors of the past returning. It all boils down to this: No matter what religion you believe in, if someone calls for a (holy) war against evil you should get very careful. You might just became "the evil" you are trying to fight.

Edit:
I missed the rest of your post but I have to say that I strongly reject your position. Destroy their holy sites? Unable to secularize? Pardon me? The arab world was the jewel of knowledge and culture, the area where the ancient wisdom of the greek and roman world was preserved. It was ahead in civil technologies years and years to Europe. This all changed when the crusaders invaded and raped the arab world. How far have we become to say that the world will be a better place if we just kill enough people we don't understand or like and destroy the things they believe in. You fear a nuke against the US but yet you supose to do the thing you fear to other people...

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Ghandi liked hitler too. Anything for independence. how do you think a huge violent rebellion during world war 2 and just afterwards would have been seen as and dealt with? Perhaps the financial situation had as much to do with India's independence as did the navy's mutiney and Ghandi's movement. I feel it may be the most important reason Britan let it go. They did owe India alot of money for WW2

As for 'terrorists' killing civillians. So does the military. Actually i would gather that military has killed thousands more than terrorists have over the Last few years. A school is as much a target as a shopping district. I gather you feel that one deserves more outrage than the other and one is correct where as the other is a crime. I see no difference. Both are wrong. But they happen as each side takes to fight to the other side.

As for the rest... No thanks. Final Solution answers really need to be attacked and put down before they take root.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

tesco, there is a difference being bombing a school accidently and doing the same intentionally. If you don't think so here, have a pistol..I'm 'sure' you'll be happy to execute all those manslaughter and second-degree murder convicts who now deserve the death penalty. The act is the same- the intent is not.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Most convential attacks with missles / bombs / troops etc... are based on a grid location. What happens to be located there or beside it is intentionaly included in estimates for colleratal damage.

I do not understand what your saying with the pistol and death penalty.

There is intent in every action. It is the outcomes and results that vary.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I see my debate in this thread has cost me a star.

Thank you for taking your anger out on my ideas by doing that

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

I should point out that the Mongols sacked them just as badly... The entire population of Baghdad, which at the time was the center of learning of the entire world, was slaughtered because they refused to submit to Mongol rule.

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

The the Mongols coverted to Islam and devasted all of the schools and temple in a good chunk of India and started killing indians that didn't submit to islam.

Go figure?

Re: OT: Civil Liberities During Crisis
 

Conquering and sacking are what the Mongols did best.