I am sick and tired of all these extremists in our country!

Thought someone should tell you: great post, haven.

 

Uh oh... so many people to counter!

Ah, no, Al Queda probably doesn't give a crap about American freedoms. That's empty rhetoric.

What does Al Queda specifically resent? Perceived American interference in the Islamic regions of the world.

Tsk tsk! How disingenuous! How ignorant of history!

One doesn't have to be poor to be a leader of the poor. Gandhi wasn't exactly being oppressed by the British. He led his people because he felt solidarity with them.

I have a friend who's an African-American doctor. He's going to Africa this year to treat AIDS victims in South Africa because he wants to help "his people."

It's called ethnic/religious/cultural solidarity. These men identified with the plight of their brethren. Until the underlying problems facing the Middle East, such as self-determination, economic exploitation, and Israeli occupation of Palestine are resolved, the problems shall not cease.

Now stop being disingenuous.

Riiiight. Let's just assume the enemy is irrational and evil. That'll make us feel better

Three points:

1. I don't object to military operations. Must that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of what's going on. The original post implied a sort of blase attitude. We should understand the horror. We should feel pain.

2. If the number of civilian casualties reaches a certain point, the accomplishing of the objective comes at a higher cost than it's worth. If it's necessary to kill too many civilians, we shouldn't become involved. Plain and simple.

3. Your differentiation between collateral damage and intent is specious in this scenario.

The terrorists blew up the WTC. That's a source of US economic infrastructure that supports the US industrial complex. The US is blowing up power plants, television stations, etc that support the regime.

These targets have military implications, but aren't military in their essential nature. Just like the WTC.

 

Bin Laden is not Gahndi.

 

Irrelevant. I argue form, not content. It matters not how they choose to lead, but rather that they do.

 

<b>haven</b>: "1. I don't object to military operations. Must that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware of what's going on. The original post implied a sort of blase attitude. We should understand the horror. We should feel pain."

<b>RR</b>: I agree that we need to wage war "responsibly"-- if that's even possible. We should feel some pain but inflict even more.

<b>haven</b>: "2. If the number of civilian casualties reaches a certain point, the accomplishing of the objective comes at a higher cost than it's worth. If it's necessary to kill too many civilians, we shouldn't become involved. Plain and simple."

<b>RR</b>: All they do is inflict civilian casualties. Why don't you tell them enough is enough? Either that or are we fight the war on their terms which does not seem to discriminate between military and civilian targets. Would you have insisted that the Revolutionary Army of America parade in procession down the green at Lexington so as to fight properly?

<b>haven</b>: "3. Your differentiation between collateral damage and intent is specious in this scenario."

<b>RR</b>: Yes. On purpose. By your definition the Taliban doesn't have to account for collateral damage because that is they way the choose to define the enemy in this war. On the other hand, we still must.

<b>haven</b>: "The terrorists blew up the WTC. That's a source of US economic infrastructure that supports the US industrial complex. The US is blowing up power plants, television stations, etc that support the regime.

These targets have military implications, but aren't military in their essential nature. Just like the WTC."

<b>RR</b>: I am probably in the minority on this, but I think they just took out the WTC because they were the tallest thing standing in our "premier" city. By your way of thinking, they should have taken out Wall Street, but one problem... they couldn't target it properly!

I say let's fight the war on their terms. Anything Talibanic gets destroyed. I doubt we would be getting bogged down.

 

Yep, it's called being "decent" and "not descending to their level."

It doubled as a symbol and as an easy target. Incidentally, their other targets were purely military/political.

Fight on their terms? Then we are no different. Better to die with principles than to live by injustice.

 

I try not to lose my cool but <i>what the <b>hell</b> are you talking about?!?!?</i>

Why don't you try reading up on something before you make a statement like that.

No, "<i>Mouhamad</i>" and the early Islam founders did not go out and kill people with different views than them. Muhammad <i>lived amongst</i> Jews and Christians in the city of Medina. They only fought in defense.

Nowhere in the <i>"Islamic Bible"</i> does it say to "<i>go out and kill those who don't believe in the name of Allah.</i>" I explained this in MadMax's thread.

Next time, don't try to post on topics which you are obviously ignorant on.

 

Mr.Spur: The literal translation is "peace." However, the religion can be defined as "submission to one God."

 

Just to interject something on the Taliban and "civilian" casualties:

Guess how many Taliban fighters have died so far - according to the Taliban? Zero. Why? Because the Taliban do not wear uniforms. Every time one of them dies, they report it to the media as a civilian death.

The Western media have no real access to the war, they have only reports from the Pentagon, the Northern Alliance, and the Taliban, and what the Taliban is willing to show them. The Pentagon is not in the habit of lying about civilian casualties; they're actually surprisingly honest about it. In some cases they have reported civilian casualties even before the Taliban did; they have an interest in not covering anything up so as to not allow the PR battle to be defined by the Taliban.

Needless to say, I take everything the Taliban says with a cup of salt.

I am not implying that no true civilians have been killed so far, a few undoubtedly have. I'm just trying to remind everyone that the reports we're hearing might not reflect reality.

 

Mr.Spur: Bin Laden is not Gahndi.

Great comeback man, you really understood his post huh....

 

<b>haven</b>: "Yep, it's called being "decent" and "not descending to their level ... Fight on their terms? Then we are no different. Better to die with principles than to live by injustice."

<b>RR</b>: War is war, right? The Taliban which rules Afghanistan has been a conspirator in a war declared on the US. You go die with your principles; I prefer to wipe them out before they kill you, me, or my family. This is about survival.

 

I understand that foreign aid to certain nations is not going to stop these terrorists. Pointing out the role of wealthy Saudis in these terrorist acts may be disquieting to some, but sobeit.

The problem seems to be based more on religious issues and political control than anything else.

Now we can sit and hold hands and believe that money will make everything right again and again, or perhaps we can understand that faith itself is a strong motivator and often operates without regard for material well-being.

No doubt you understand this .

 

Perhaps, but unlikely.

Historically speaking, if you look long and hard enough at a religious war, you find money underneath it all. Religion gets blamed a lot for stuff... but I'll be the first to see it's not to blame, usually.

The Crusades took place to exploit trade routes to China and bring back loot. They continued because the Venetians became very, very rich.

The Thirty Years War took place not because anybody in power really cared about Luther or the Pope, but rather because Protestantism politically justified divesting the Catholic church of its power. It was an expedient and an excuse, not a route cause.

In the Balkans, nobody really cared who was Christian or Muslim. By 1980, Yugoslavians simply didn't think in those terms when identifying themselves. Intermarriage rates were high and discrimination practically didn't exist. Then suddenly... oops! Milosevic needs a scapegoat. Oh yes... those Muslim bastards!

Religion is a cloak for more substantive issues 99 times out of 100.