Originally posted by Siskinagree with Siskin, "complete surrender" does not sound like surrendering in Iraq (which is local and which the U.S. does not govern anyway) but a surrender in the Global War On Terrorism.
...
I fail to see how this qualifies as a statement about withdrawal from Iraq.
Perhaps your incisive legal mind will clear this up for me.
1 edit
Originally posted by DeepThoughti haven't made any claims about the nature of the spread of Christianity, which i freely acknowledge has had its share of murderous episodes over the years. I'm not a Christian and have nothing invested in it. Having said that, it should be noted that the early histories of Christianity and Islam are radically different: Christianity survived for its first three centuries as a relatively small underground sect in parts of the Roman empire. It did not become mainstream until the conversion of the emperor Constantine (in 323AD i think). That's probably where it went off the rails - combining with the military-minded and decadent (at the time) Roman empire. Islam, on the other hand, spread via the sword almost right from the get go - read the references for more detail.
Well there's the small matter of the crusades, Christianty has been spread by fairly murderous means over history. I really don't think that this has any relevance to anything.
I'm too drunk to type properly now, I'll try arguin ...[text shortened]... ames I've neglected today - I finally got some work done though😲
The point is - sure the West has engaged in military conquest and colonisation, but it is hardly alone in that - Islam spread by the sword, and radical elements within it seek to continue this strategy. Marauder paints a ridiculous one-sided picture seeking to blame the West for everything that is happening today. In fact - and this seems very ironic to me - the countries churning out suicide bombers for jihad today were almost all conquered militarily by forces seeking to spread Islam across the world. I am seeking recognition of the fact that all or almost all cultures have engaged in conquest and colonisation when they have been strong enough to do so. Before the Spaniards arrived in Mexico and Sth America, the Aztecs, Incas, Mayas and others had carved out their own bloodthirsty empires. In 1767 the Buddhist Burmese kingdom sacked the Buddhist Thai capital Ayuthaya - one of a series of wars between these two powers. Then there were the far-ranging Mongolian invasions of Central Asia and China.
So, yes, the West has done its fair share of this kind of thing, but it should be seen in its broader historical context, so we can get rid of this ridiculous view that the West is somehow uniquely guilty of colonisation and military expansion.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderperhaps you should look at decreasing the dose of whatever medication you're on, as it is clearly messing with your head. There were suicide bombings before the Iraq war, and there will be until Israel is annihilated and after. Perhaps the destruction of Israel is what you really want, hmm?
Try reading the "Suicide Bombers" thread in Debates since you pretty obviously don't know what you're talking about. The motivation of our present crop of Islamic suicide bombers is to get Western forces out of the Middle E ...[text shortened]... wide neverending war of the kind you are describing. Count me out.
There could have been no invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq without 9/11 - far from achieving their goals, suicide bombers only serve to give the West a pretext for furthering its goals in the Middle East and beyond. Suicide bombers have never achieved their wider goals - Israel is still there, the West is still in Afghanistan and Iraq and will stay until it is ready to leave. The only small victory they achieved was when the Spanish wimped out of the coalition. Withdrawing from Iraq will send a signal that this tactic can be successful, and then we will be hostage to a much greater wave of suicide bombings. The only way for the West is to stay strong and weather the storm. It is the same reason your government does not negotiate with terrorists - it can't afford to allow the perception that this tactic can be employed successfully.
As for holy war, and neverending war, i have never called for any such thing. WW2 finished, the Cold War finished, and this will finish too. in fact, if not for 9/11, we would perhaps be living in relatively peaceful times today (it is to be hoped). what has to happen for at least some degree of peace is that the Islamic world has to recognise that Israel is here to stay, and deal with that. Israel in turn must recognise the Palestinian need for a homeland also. Ideally Jerusalem should be an open city as it is sacred to Jews, Christians and Muslims.
once that situation is resolved, there will still be militaristic Islamic fundamentalists, but without the Israel issue inflaming passions, they will be less successful in recruiting interest in their cause among ordinary Muslims.
Do you really think Osama and his ilk will go away while there is an Israel?
Originally posted by chancremechanicHe was being followed because he left a house that was under surveillance, so it's quite possible that he had nothing to do with it. We don't have the death penalty here, and it's not justice unless there is a trial.
Sounds like justice to me if the scumbag was responsible for terror bombs on the subway, don't you think?
Your other post was too offensive to quote, but all I can say is that the majority of muslims are as, if not more, law abiding than WASP's. They are horrified by the attacks, but also fear reprisals from idiots like you who see an Asian face and assume that they must be a terrorist - I seem to remember a white man was responsible for the last big terrorist outrage before 9/11 in your country. You do have a short memory.
1 edit
Originally posted by Redmikehere's the story, if anyone's interested. i sounds to me as if the two police were hard done by. remember, these guy's lives are on the line. if something that looks like a gun (and obviously it did, resulting in the initial call to police from the pub) is being pointed at you in the manner described, you can't afford not to shoot. what if it had been a gun and the police had hesitated? one of them might have ended up dead. there's no indication the Scotsman was drunk - he had tea at his brother's house, and stopped off at the pub for a lemonade. he should have just dropped the bag, complied with the orders of the police - if he had he would most likely still be alive today.
This case was nothing to do with 'war'. It was a drunk Scotsman with a table leg.
EDIT: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3974461.stm
Originally posted by dfm65Perhaps you can get over this ridiculous fetish about ancient history that has no bearing on the present situation. I'm really tired of the grotesque mischaracterizations of my position, so I'll try to explain slowly to you right wing "warriors".
i haven't made any claims about the nature of the spread of Christianity, which i freely acknowledge has had its share of murderous episodes over the years. I'm not a Christian and have nothing invested in it. Having said that, it should be noted that the early histories of Christianity and Islam are radically different: Christianity survived for its first t ...[text shortened]... ridiculous view that the West is somehow uniquely guilty of colonisation and military expansion.
I don't "blame the West" for "everything that is happening today", but I do try to see the actual causes of what is happening. You again apparently didn't bother to read the "Suicide Bombers" thread in Debates; intellectual laziness seems to be a trademark of supporters of this war. I fully explained what the goals of the Islamic Fundamentalist movement in my post above; suicide and other bombings are the tactics they have adopted to acheive these goals. If the Western governments did what they should do anyway, which is not support with troops and treasure medieval Middle Eastern sultans and strongmen i.e. not meddle in the internal affairs of Muslim countries, there would be no terror campaign against the West. What part of that is soooooooooo hard to understand? And what, pray tell, does the Mongolian invasions of Central Asia 500-1000 years ago have to do with any of this?????
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65We've been all through the "no1Marauder is an anti-Semite BS". There is no question that the creation of a Jewish run state in an area primarily populated by Muslims and the "ethnic cleansing" which followed was a disasterous meddling in the Middle East by the West who's ramifications are still being felt. Given that Israel does exist, however, and Israel proper controls 76% of what was Palestine, there is no reason for Israel to continue to occupy the territories illegally seized in the 1967 war. If Israel was to relinquish them, I suspect that terrorism against them would drop to a trickle.
perhaps you should look at decreasing the dose of whatever medication you're on, as it is clearly messing with your head. There were suicide bombings before the Iraq war, and there will be until Israel is annihilated and after. Perhaps the d ...[text shortened]... think Osama and his ilk will go away while there is an Israel?
Your global analysis is pitifully ignorant; apparently in 1968 you would have said all the US had to do is "weather the strom" and the Viet Cong will eventually give up! The Soviets were in Afghanistan for a while, too, but eventually left. Informed public opinion in the US will eventually insist on withdrawal from Iraq as nothing is being accomplished but the deaths of a lot of people, including most importantly to Americans close to 2000 Americans. A stubborn insistence to remain in a fruitless venture might lead to a happy ending in a Clint Eastwood movie, but not in the real world. There is really no question that the invasion and more importantly, the continued occupation of Iraq, has immensely strengthened the forces of the IF's throughout the world politically and militarily. The US, by contrast, has been weakened in both spheres. In sum, the US occupation in Iraq is a losing proposition for the West.
Israel is the one who have refused to relinquish for almost 40 years territory illegally seized. The Palestinians and Arab states have been willing for years to accept Israel's existence if they gave the West Bank to an independent Palestinian state. Israel has consistently refused to do so due to its own religious extremists. You people never say, of course, you are for a neverending war but by adopting the positions you do, the practical result is either the IF's give up their attempts to run Muslim countries or we war against them until they do. When do you think they will stop trying to run their countries and regions?
Might want to look up Osama's biography; he did not engage in any actions against Israel (and still hasn't to my knowledge) but he has fought against non-Muslim militaries who occupy Muslim lands like the Soviets in Afghanistan and the US in Saudia Arabia. I doubt the IF's will go away until they run their countries or are defeated by indigenous forces not propped up by the West. I suspect that even if the IF's did eventually take control of certain Muslim countries, they would be unable to govern them in the long run absent the West aiding them by continuing to meddle in the ME; as the article I posted in the "Bush and Osama: Mirror Images" thread in Debates points out, IF's need the hatred of the West to expand their anti-modern agenda. Absent this "help" from GW and his ilk, I suspect that in time the political power of the IF's would ebb and Muslim countries might actually have a shot at building decent societies ruled by secular progressives. But so long as Western Fundamentalists attempt to de facto rule over the Middle East in a neocolonial manner, the IF's will continue to be supported by vast portions of Muslim popular opinion.
Looks like the guy shot dead wasn't connected with the Thursday bomb attempts. Well he shouldn't have run from police and jumped on a train, given recent events in London, should he? It's as if his actions were designed to provoke the police. If he had been carrying a bomb, the police involved would be hailed as heroes for saving a carriage full of people. In situations like that, there is no time for hesitation. I hope this is recognised by those investigating the incident, and the officers' handling of it. It would be unfair to discipline them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
1 edit
Originally posted by dfm65Please enlighten me and inform me when Australia became a fascist dictatorship where the police are allowed to kill you for not obeying their orders; I must have missed this. In both the "table leg" case and now this one, you have excused a police killing on the police's simple claim that a "suspect" (actually not even technically that) didn't obey them. This is not something that warrants immediate execution in countries that purport to be free. The police are not in uniform to protect themselves, but to protect the public; they assume a risk by taking the job. In recent years there has been a spate of trigger happy policeman killing innocent persons due to their poor training and/or paranoia. I am referring mostly to the "table leg" case here; the police story there seems to be BS and a man was killed shortly after he peacefully had drink in a pub primarily because his Scottish accent sounded too Irish. I await a further investigation of the subway shooting; unlike dfm I am not willing to give police the right to kill anyone who doesn't immediately submit to their authority but all the relevant facts must be examined to determine if the police acted irresponsibly and should be disciplined.
Looks like the guy shot dead wasn't connected with the Thursday bomb attempts. Well he shouldn't have run from police and jumped on a train, given recent events in London, should he? It's as if his actions were designed to provoke the poli ...[text shortened]... r to discipline them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
Originally posted by dfm65The dead man isn't really in a postion to give his side of the story is he.
Looks like the guy shot dead wasn't connected with the Thursday bomb attempts. Well he shouldn't have run from police and jumped on a train, given recent events in London, should he? It's as if his actions were designed to provoke the police. If he had been carrying a bomb, the police involved would be hailed as heroes for saving a carriage full of people. ...[text shortened]... dling of it. It would be unfair to discipline them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
If he was white would the police have taken the same action?
I doubt it
Originally posted by dfm65You are right, if it had turned out that the person was indeed a terrorist, people would probably be much less critical towards the behaviour of the police and might even celebrate them as heroes. But you can't justify your actions by information which was not available at that time, saying "see, I had no way of knowing it at that time, but I was right after all".
Looks like the guy shot dead wasn't connected with the Thursday bomb attempts. Well he shouldn't have run from police and jumped on a train, given recent events in London, should he? It's as if his actions were designed to provoke the police. If he had been carrying a bomb, the police involved would be hailed as heroes for saving a carriage full of people. ...[text shortened]... dling of it. It would be unfair to discipline them.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4711021.stm
As for his behaviour, he may simply have panicked, and running away is a natural behaviour if you are in panic. The reaction of the police may also have been natural, but the police should have the necessary training to suppress their natural responses and do their duty.