the outcome of the election

[Skandranon]

I'd take this with a grain of salt, but I've heard Democratic talking heads spew the same garbage on TV since the election.

I'd take the article with a grain of sugar, really, given how bitter it is. I should probably have said "strongly worded" instead of "strongly written", because the latter implies that I agree with it, which I don't. It's an interesting thing to discuss, though.

[eppie]

From Merriam-Webster; JUNTA - "a council or committee for political or governmental purposes; especially : a group of persons controlling a government especially after a revolutionary seizure of power"

I find it offensive that you describe our political process in those terms. 


-----I didn't say anything baout your "political process". I merely agreed with things previously said.  Anyway, comparing things ode never meen they are the same. If I say a cat is just like dog (in it that it is a predator, has 4 legs, mammal etc.etc.) doesn't mean I cannot see the difference between the two. And as to you "offensive" statement, I find Bush offensive, only I'm here writing things on a forum based around a computer game, and he is in charge of the western world, I find it a bit over the top that you get offended by my mail.




Now, about terrorism.  I think you have no clue the extent that this administration has undertaken to root out terrorism.  Here in the US with the DOHS, in passing the PATRIOT act (which is extreme), in financial institutions in tracing the sources of funding, in cooperative relationships with our allies, and militarily in finding where the camps are and destroying them. 

I'm not sure why you choose to minimize these things, but again to me it seems you are parroting the propaganda of those aligned against the US. 

---I'm not parroting propaganda, I write down about facts (Bin Laden is not captured yet, even foxnews doesn't say so) and my own experience. If I see 5 km before the Hoover dam that we have to go through a police control center, all bigger cars and vans are checked for explosives a bit strange...who are they kidding....if a terrorist wants to blow up that dam, he walks around the post a few times at night, steps in another car after the post, fills it up with explosives...and there you are. So to me this control has as sole purpose to make people believe the government does something usefull against terrorism.  And let's not start talking about airport security.




When Bush said, "You are either with us, or with the terrorists", this was what he was implying. 

--when Bush said that, he was just trying to make a good impression, because it is rediculous statement. I am very much against terrorism and even more whne it is religieously inspired. I'm however also against the war in Iraq, and the way he handles things. If he is implying I'm with the terrorist he can expect a call of my lawyer.  :D


This is a serious issue, and the US has decided to go to war.  It is serious enough to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, even of US citizens which has not been done since the US civil war.  Reasonable people can disagree without being disagreeable.  We all need to discuss this malady called terrorism, because at least in the US we are not going to take it anymore.  At least not laying down.  I don't agree with everything that has been enacted here, but I respect that the people in charge are acting rather than wringing their hands.  Unlike the UN.
[right][snapback]59552[/snapback][/right]

Kandrathe, we are all against terrorism, and nobody is accusing the US from doing anything wrong about going to afghanistan, and trying to get Bin Laden. Please let's not get into that discussion again, but Iraq is something else. And what Bush did there is to "create" fundamentalists and terrorists, and I'm not grateful for that.

[Armin]

Some thoughts from another perspective:

1)  We need as much support in Iraq as possible to try to create some semblance of security before the scheduled elections in January.  In the areas that are somewhat secure, basic reconstruction has to get better.

Iraq has long seized to be the #1 problem (and it has only ever been because the Bush admin was so insanely determined to wage war againt Iraq, no matter the reason). Currently, there's such an immense amount of anti-American resentment and open hatred being built throughout the Arab world that you will, tragically I fear, suffer for generations from it.

[Note: I use the word "problem" here as in "Place where something can be or must be done to worsen or better the situation". Of course the situation in Iraq is disastrous, but the damage is done and undoing it will be a long term process and changes for better or worse being small and of little immediate payoff]

In a recent "Internet-Fatwa" (A Fatwa is kind of an "official letter" on religious matters from high ranking muslim clergy) 26 high-ranking members of the Saudi Arabian islamic clergy have stated that "Fighting the occupants is a sacred duty for all able-bodied, resistance a legitimate right and the laws of Islam oblige the Iraqi people to defend their honor, their Oil and their future against the colonialistic alliance." (translated from Arabic to German and then to English, so probably badly mangled)
Again, this coming from Saudi Arabia, your most important ally in the Gulf...

Also, security in an arabic country is not improved by bashing down people's doors, storming their houses at night, shouting swear words at them in English and treating the men like dirt in view of their women and family.
One clip like this and one picture from Abu Ghraib would have done enough damage, but add to that a potential 100.000 civilian deaths and the collective shame of the invasion and you'll be facing 3 generations of NEW potential terrorists.

I know that probably no nation on earth has bigger problems to deal with foreign mentalities and ways of thinking than Americans, but let me assure you, you're dealing with people who, historically, are quite used to holding a grudge not for years but for centuries.

I can personally understand EVERY government that does not want to be drawn into the quagmire you created...

No, the Iraqi situation is there and is gonna stay there, but the real problem is that THIS time (unlike during the cold war and the perceived communist threat) there might be an actual "domino effect", and that the first stones have already toppled.

Fundamentalist and extremist movements are currently gaining support and momentum in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Jemen, Jordan, Sudan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, even Turkey (NATO member!) and probably a dozen other countries that don't come to mind right now. Tragic thing is, in some of those countries they were actually dwindling prior to King George II's recruitment campaign.

3)  The nuclear threat in Iran needs to be assessed.  If it is significant, the diplomatic response needs to be immediate, aggressive, and broadbased.  Ideally, the United States would not have a leading role in this.

I think the "nuclear threat" from Iran is currently completely exagerrated while more REAL threats are conveniently ignored. (Btw.: the EU has been negotiating a possible solution to the dilemma for months behind the scenes and I'd wager my money on Europe to be more able to reason with Iranian diplomats than the "Satan America" :P )

But here's a probably much more severe threat:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

Frightening side note: Abdul Qadeer Khan, long-time head of the Pakistani nuclear program is also an avid and outspoken admirer of Usama bin Ladin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdul_Qadeer_Khan

But as Pakistans military dicta... err, pardon, PRESIDENT Musharraf is currently being nice to the US, this potential threat is ignored and rather the old grudge against Iran revisited...

4)  Resume negotiations between the U.S. (well, if someone else actually thinks they can do it, that would be great...), Israel, and Palestine.  Palestinian leadership is currently in flux, so who knows when this can happen.  It needs to happen and continue until Palestine is a recognized nation with mutually accepted boundaries.

Of course it would help a TON, if US involvement in these negotiations were not always perceived as being so completely biased towards the Israeli side. (I do admit, that only some bias is real and some merely perceived, but again in the Arab world perception can be as -if not more - problematic!)

Perhaps, simply stopping the dull "Auto-Veto" against every single UN resolution that would criticize Israel would be a first step...

5)  When future terrorist acts do occur in western nations, we need to be able to cooperate with each other, share intelligence, try to trace back the equipment/money/etc., and find out exactly who is responsible.  What happens once you get to that point is a tricky matter.  I think it is basically up to the country that gets attacked to make that decision. 

Agree on all THESE points.
Strongly disagree on "lets go to war against someone who had nothing at all to do with it"

I understand why Europeans feel fear and anger towards the approaches Bush has taken in the Middle East.  However, this is not a spectator sport.  The role that Europe plays in this will determine whether anything is a success or whether the whole thing becomes a bigger mess. 

The mess the Bush admin has created is already so disastrous, that we'll probably all pay the price for generations. Prior to 9/11 there were a few thousand radicals in the islamic world hating the west with such an intense determination that they were ready to die killing "infidels". Today, there's probably hundreds of thousands and MILLIONS of sympathizers.

Probably if Europe had taken a more active role prior to the Iraq war, they could have prevented it from ever occurring, but it is too late for that now.  At this point, it is critical to do everything possible to make Iraq and Afghanistan liveable.  If we can make it through that, perhaps someone other than the U.S. can take leadership in determining what else needs to be done.  Although personally, I'm not sure the E.U. is ready for that kind of leadership, and the U.N. is only good for preserving the status quo (and not very effective even for that).

People like Bin Ladin and radical islamists in many other countries hate us not for things the Europeans have NOT done but for what the US has done. Supporting Israel, bombing Beirut, toppling the Iranian Government and bringing Shah Reza Pahlavi back, the first Gulf war, the support for the Saudi and Kuwaiti royal families (all while claiming to bring freedom and democracy to the region <_< ) and countless other blunders of the "Oil must flow" age...

Whatever we do, creating more hatred CANNOT end terrorism, and waging war on weakness cannot work.

[ManaCraft]

Probably if Europe had taken a more active role prior to the Iraq war, they could have prevented it from ever occurring

I doubt that very much. The Bush administration was so committed to the idea of waging war in Iraq, I strongly suspect they would have gone ahead regardless.


ManaCraft

[jahcs]

Again at what point do you DECIDE who is a "member" (of something that isn't even a real organisation, more like a common slogan) and may, thus, be held indefinitely? A human right ceases to exist the very moment that it is possibly to deny it to someone, on whatever grounds. That is, infuriating as it may be, the reason why the axe murderer arrested with the bloody axe in hand with 12 victims underfoot MUST have the right to a fair trial.

...

Again, one cannot claim to fight for freedom, democracy and rule of law and try to defend these values from those that would attack them by eroding the very principles they are build upon. That way, Al Qaeda has already won.

19 young men with carpet kives cannot do damage to freedom, democracy or even a nation. They can only kill people, destroy buildings and cause fear.

All the REAL damage is done by the means that were supposedly justified by the ends.
[right][snapback]59478[/snapback][/right]

A person standing on a pile of corpses with a bloody axe is not an "axe murderer" until the media or a trial by jury names him so. It may be an open and shut case based on the evidence but the person arrested is innocent until proven guilty, or until the story breaks in the mass media.

And 19 men with boxcutters can do damage to our freedom, democracy, and nation. The terrorists attacked a target of economic and symbolic importance and the full extent of the damage from that attack may never be known. How we deal with the damage and take steps to ensure it does not happen again are problems we have been attempting to deal with for several years - and I see that continuing for years to come.

[jahcs]

If we're going to discuss this in terms of a tiger hunt, let's at leat make it a realistic comparison.

If the terrorists are a tiger, the W is certainly not a skinny human stepping into a cage with said tiger.&nbsp; W is more like a tank.&nbsp; Or robocop.&nbsp; Or the terminator.&nbsp; Or an attack helicopter cruising through the zoo, shooting missiles and machine guns at the tiger.&nbsp; He's the leader of a militar super power; of the country that has the greatest collection of things that go *boom* and the most recent active will to use them.

That's why your metaphor is useless.&nbsp; You're portraying the US as the weak, helpless victim, when they are in fact obviously in a position of strength.&nbsp; Are the terrorists a threat?&nbsp; Of course they are.&nbsp; However, there has to be more to foreign relations than simply shooting everyone who you consider a threat.

gekko
[right][snapback]59364[/snapback][/right]

You all may have that metaphor backwards. The USA was the tiger, sunning himself contentedly in his cage built of ignorance for the outside world when the terrorist snuck in and kicked the tiger in the nethers. The tiger woke, angry and hurt, and unsheathed it's claws to remove the threat. Instead of just going for the leg that kicked the tiger is going for the whole body - which is creating a commotion and causing agitation for the zoo's other residents.

[kandrathe]

I didn't say anything baout your "political process". I merely agreed with things previously said.&nbsp; Anyway, comparing things ode never meen they are the same. If I say a cat is just like dog (in it that it is a predator, has 4 legs, mammal etc.etc.) doesn't mean I cannot see the difference between the two. And as to you "offensive" statement, I find Bush offensive, only I'm here writing things on a forum based around a computer game, and he is in charge of the western world, I find it a bit over the top that you get offended by my mail.
[right][snapback]59624[/snapback][/right]

Don't minimize your statements just due to where they are posted. You're opinions matter regardless of where you choose to post them. I've read better social discourse on this board than many respected national publications.

The US administration is not a Junta, which I associate mentally with the military dictatorships of the 70's. They were punctuated by government sanctioned death squads patrolling the country eliminating any political opposition. That is what I find offensive.

...

Kandrathe, we are all against terrorism, and nobody is accusing the US from doing anything wrong about going to afghanistan, and trying to get Bin Laden. Please let's not get into that discussion again, but Iraq is something else. And what Bush did there is to "create" fundamentalists and terrorists, and I'm not grateful for that.
[right][snapback]59624[/snapback][/right]

We can disagree about the paths that the war on terror have taken, and the methods. Mistakes have been made on all sides, both those of action and inaction. What I'm saying is that we should try to find some common ground on what we can do moving forward. More mistakes will be made in the future, and we can choose to berate each other with them, or learn another lesson and persevere.

So I think as Nystul pointed out, "We need as much support in Iraq as possible to try to create some semblance of security before the scheduled elections in January. In the areas that are somewhat secure, basic reconstruction has to get better." We can disagree about how this came about, but I agree that this is now the only course.

We need to address the threat that all nuclear weapons, and other WMD's pose to our planets citizens no matter who has them. We are at a crossroads in history where we went to the nuclear brink with the USSR, and now we have pulled back and begun disarming. What we do not need is a bunch of small states trying to begin the arms race again. I would love to see a US free of WMD's in my lifetime.

<rant>
Armin's disection of Nystul's post was another venting of his frustration at the past, but offers one idea that we have heard before. That is that the US, and the West need to stop doing things that annoy islamicists. As evidence he again dredges up 50 years of post WWII historical crap to fling at us. Yes, it is our crap. Yes, we did that stuff. Consider our noses completely rubbed into it. And, if we dug into the actions European nations for the past 50 or 100 years we could dredge up more crap and fling at each other. Is that helpful? Is it a justification for flying planes into skyscrapers, or beheading truck drivers or aid workers? Or, God forbid, using WMD's on large population centers?

Rather, I'd wish that first the US can learn to do as Teddy Roosevelt suggested, "Walk softly and carry a big stick". That is not likely with the current administration, so let's move on and do what good we can do. When you wear the big boots, your bound to step on a few toes. That's not to excuse it, but I acknowledge it does happen.

Does anyone really believe that the islamicist movement will wither up if we appease them? I think we are damned if we act and double damned if we don't act. Does anyone think that a person who is willing to behead another is going to stop if they get their way? The stated goal of the islamicist theocratic movement is the total destruction of Isreal and the West and everything they stand for to be replaced by a pan-islamofascist state. We are at war with the people who are not guided by western concepts of reason or fairness. We call them extremists. I think it would be a big mistake to assume they think as we do; this is a jihad and if they die in its cause they are martyrs to be guaranteed heaven. I don't want to be tolerant of terrorists or murderers.
</rant>

:) Now I got that off my chest.

[jahcs]

Great rant Kandrathe. Especially that last paragraph.

[Armin]

</rant>&nbsp;

:)&nbsp; Now I got that off my chest.
[right][snapback]59650[/snapback][/right]

Yeah, nice rant.

But since when is "Stop acting like a Bully and herding people into the fanatic's arms by the millions" the same as "Appease them and let them have their way"?

No one said that the fanatics should not be dealt with, or that they'd leave us alone if we'd just left THEM.

But at the moment, The United States are their best recruiters...

[ManaCraft]

The USA was the tiger, sunning himself contentedly in his cage built of ignorance for the outside world when the terrorist snuck in and kicked the tiger in the nethers.&nbsp; The tiger woke, angry and hurt, and unsheathed it's claws to remove the threat.&nbsp; Instead of just going for the leg that kicked the tiger is going for the whole body - which is creating a commotion and causing agitation for the zoo's other residents.
[right][snapback]59649[/snapback][/right]

Too bad that the body the tiger is going for is not attached to the leg that kicked it. :P


ManaCraft

[Ashock]

Don't minimize your statements just due to where they are posted.&nbsp; You're opinions matter regardless of where you choose to post them.&nbsp; I've read better social discourse on this board than many respected national publications.&nbsp;

The US administration is not a Junta, which I associate mentally with the military dictatorships of the 70's.&nbsp; They were punctuated by government sanctioned death squads patrolling the country eliminating any political opposition.&nbsp; That is what I find offensive.
We can disagree about the paths that the war on terror have taken, and the methods.&nbsp; Mistakes have been made on all sides, both those of action and inaction.&nbsp; What I'm saying is that we should try to find some common ground on what we can do moving forward.&nbsp; More mistakes will be made in the future, and we can choose to berate each other with them, or learn another lesson and persevere.

So I think as Nystul pointed out, "We need as much support in Iraq as possible to try to create some semblance of security before the scheduled elections in January.&nbsp; In the areas that are somewhat secure, basic reconstruction has to get better."&nbsp; We can disagree about how this came about, but I agree that this is now the only course.

We need to address the threat that all nuclear weapons, and other WMD's pose to our planets citizens no matter who has them.&nbsp; We are at a crossroads in history where we went to the nuclear brink with the USSR, and now we have pulled back and begun disarming.&nbsp; What we do not need is a bunch of small states trying to begin the arms race again.&nbsp; I would love to see a US free of WMD's in my lifetime.&nbsp;

<rant>
Armin's disection of Nystul's post was another venting of his frustration at the past, but offers one idea that we have heard before.&nbsp; That is that the US, and the West need to stop doing things that annoy islamicists.&nbsp; As evidence he again dredges up 50 years of post WWII historical crap to fling at us.&nbsp; Yes, it is our crap.&nbsp; Yes, we did that stuff.&nbsp; Consider our noses completely rubbed into it.&nbsp; And, if we dug into the actions European nations for the past 50 or 100 years we could dredge up more crap and fling at each other.&nbsp; Is that helpful?&nbsp; Is it a justification for flying planes into skyscrapers, or beheading truck drivers or aid workers?&nbsp; Or, God forbid, using WMD's on large population centers?

Rather, I'd wish that first the US can learn to do as Teddy Roosevelt suggested,&nbsp; "Walk softly and carry a big stick".&nbsp; That is not likely with the current administration, so let's move on and do what good we can do.&nbsp; When you wear the big boots, your bound to step on a few toes.&nbsp; That's not to excuse it, but I acknowledge it does happen.

Does anyone really believe that the islamicist movement will wither up if we appease them?&nbsp; I think we are damned if we act and double damned if we don't act.&nbsp; Does anyone think that a person who is willing to behead another is going to stop if they get their way?&nbsp; The stated goal of the islamicist theocratic movement is the total destruction of Isreal and the West and everything they stand for to be replaced by a pan-islamofascist state.&nbsp; We are at war with the people who are not guided by western concepts of reason or fairness.&nbsp; We call them extremists.&nbsp; I think it would be a big mistake to assume they think as we do; this is a jihad and if they die in its cause they are martyrs to be guaranteed heaven.&nbsp; I don't want to be tolerant of terrorists or murderers.
</rant>&nbsp;

:)&nbsp; Now I got that off my chest.
[right][snapback]59650[/snapback][/right]

This is the first war that I can think of, where only one side is treating it as such. I am often reminded of that king of appeasers Chamberlein and his wonderful "Now we will have peace in our time!" You'd think that after that, the Europeans would finally learn their lesson. Guess not. I guess after being the cause of 2 world wars, and countless others, they will do their utmost to not be involved in another war, for any reason whatsoever. Germany is a perfect example. From the best soldiers on earth, they turned into the best pacifists. Of course, even that they do in their own special style. Always extreme, never balanced.



-A

[Armin]

Germany is a perfect example. From the best soldiers on earth, they turned into the best pacifists. Of course, even that they do in their own special style. Always extreme, never balanced.
[right][snapback]59654[/snapback][/right]

Of course you conveniently ignore the fact, that we DID go along in the Kosovo war - even despite severe constitutional problems with that. (Our constituition clearly stated that German armed forces are ONLY to be used in the defense of Germany or it's NATO Allies.)

Also, of course German soldiers DID fight in Afghanistan (again, a legal eagle, as NATO declared the 9/11 attacks as attacks on our American ally) and are STILL there. And yes, there have been casualties among them but no one seriously calls for their withdrawal.

But, have it your Black-and-White way B)

[Mavfin]

Sadly enough, my vote for Bush was a vote for the devil I knew, rather than the devil I just didn't quite trust. At least I think I know what Bush is about, and some of the things he will/won't do. Kerry just did not inspire trust in me. I'm not going to put a new man in the Oval Office that I don't trust to put the country's interests before his own. (and this after some research, and NOT because of negative crap from the Bush campaign)

'nuff said. These are my opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own.

[kandrathe]

Yeah, nice rant.

But since when is "Stop acting like a Bully and herding people into the fanatic's arms by the millions" the same as "Appease them and let them have their way"?

No one said that the fanatics should not be dealt with, or that they'd leave us alone if we'd just left THEM.

But at the moment, The United States are their best recruiters...
[right][snapback]59652[/snapback][/right]

I don't agree. Success in the field has been their best recruiter.

Like many EU states agreement with the PLO that in exchange for granting PLO agents immunity from arrest and prosecution for terrorist activities, these countries obtained from the PLO a promise of nonviolence on European soil.

Like a massive train bombing in Spain, that changes an election prompting Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to announce that he intends to pull Spain’s military forces out of Iraq. Terrorists around the world are now emboldened to use the mass murder of innocents as a political tool.

C. Bradley Thompson of the Rand Institute said "And how has the United States responded to this 25-year Reign of Terror? It has done almost nothing; it has responded with shameless appeasement. They bomb, we investigate; they bomb, we call for "restraint"; they bomb, we negotiate."

End States Who Sponsor Terrorism -- Leonard Peikoff, Rand Institute, 10-2-2001

I'll end with something more hopeful...

[eppie]

Sadly enough, my vote for Bush was a vote for the devil I knew, rather than the devil I just didn't quite trust.&nbsp; At least I think I know what Bush is about, and some of the things he will/won't do.&nbsp; Kerry just did not inspire trust in me.&nbsp; I'm not going to put a new man in the Oval Office that I don't trust to put the country's interests before his own.&nbsp; (and this after some research, and NOT because of negative crap from the Bush campaign)

'nuff said.&nbsp; These are my opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own.
[right][snapback]59678[/snapback][/right]

So you mean you think that Kerry might put his own interests first? That's a strange refreshing opinion I have never heard before.

Anyway, I never really understood people that voted for Bush because of his strong leadership, do they seriously think that when Gore or somebody else was president during the 9/11 attacks he would not go after Bin Laden??

[eppie]

Does anyone really believe that the islamicist movement will wither up if we appease them?&nbsp; I think we are damned if we act and double damned if we don't act.&nbsp; Does anyone think that a person who is willing to behead another is going to stop if they get their way?&nbsp; The stated goal of the islamicist theocratic movement is the total destruction of Isreal and the West and everything they stand for to be replaced by a pan-islamofascist state.&nbsp; We are at war with the people who are not guided by western concepts of reason or fairness.&nbsp; We call them extremists.&nbsp; I think it would be a big mistake to assume they think as we do; this is a jihad and if they die in its cause they are martyrs to be guaranteed heaven.&nbsp; I don't want to be tolerant of terrorists or murderers.
</rant>&nbsp;

:)&nbsp; Now I got that off my chest.
[right][snapback]59650[/snapback][/right]

I think the problem is not fundatmentally with islamd but with poverty. There had to come a time that countries (or people) did not agree anymore with the division of rich and poor (1st 2nd 3rd world). The best way to start a revolt is of course to use religion (poor against rich does not work because as soon as a poor man gets rich he switches sides). The fundamentalism was existing for a long time, only did not work so good since most muslims still did not see a reason to hate the west, okay there was Israel..but okay. Now when the conflcit gets fired up from two sides everyhting is possible. We in the rich west were not so smart to see that deep inside religion was not the problem here. Instead we put oil on the fire. You cannot expect the side of the muslims to stop very soon, after Iraq, it will take (like Armin said) 10s of years before you have children there that don't hate us, and they have nothing to lose.

So long story short, religion is not the cause here in this conflict, is it a tool people use to get their way, if we want to end this conflict we should work on major economic reforms. Which means forcing the people in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait etc. to work the way we want. To make sure that there the monet doesn't stay in the hand of some sjeiks (bush friends) but goes to the people. Going to the poorest countries in the region to make trouble started a conflict, it did not end one.

[Lord_Olf]

Hail eppie,

So long story short, religion is not the cause here in this conflict, is it a tool people use to get their way, ...
[right][snapback]59719[/snapback][/right]

I tended to see this the same as you, but some recent things have made me reexamine that point of view. Most recent of them: The van Gogh murder. I'm not 100% sure if they got the murderer yet (you'll know better, being from the Netherlands, IIRC), but the evidence present strongly suggests that he was murdered by an Islamistic extremist. Also, when a TV crew interviewed some people from his local mosque, it got relatively clear that there was, if not open support, then at least a sense of understanding, along the lines that "He was offended, and did what he had to do".

So, was that murderer someone flown in from Afgahnistan or Iraq? I guess not, so the poverty argument doesn't really work here. I don't say that all people of the Islamic faith are potential murderers, but lately it seems to me that the capability for violence when it comes to defending their faith is quite big, and "crossing the line" becomes easily justifiable. Remember, we're not talking about someone defending his soil against an invader, but about someone murdering because he had his religious feelings offended.

SIDE NOTE: The Dutch movie-maker and journalist van Gogh (forgot his first name) was murdered some days ago in the Netherlands. Evidence seems to indicate that he was murdered for his views on Islam, foremost for his last movie, "Supression". In this film, which is mainly about the supression of women in Islamistic lands, he for example shows a naked women with lines from the Koran written on her body.

Also, he was murdered quite brutally, first being shot, then having his throat cut and then stabbed. Another thing that suggests to me that in Islam, there might really be a tendency to think of "those not of the faith" as lesser beings whom it is OK to butcher if they misbehave. A tendency, mind you, not saying that every Moslem is an extremist is a murderer... but something worth thinking about.

Take care,

Lord_Olf

[Ashock]

Hail eppie,
I tended to see this the same as you, but some recent things have made me reexamine that point of view. Most recent of them: The van Gogh murder. I'm not 100% sure if they got the murderer yet (you'll know better, being from the Netherlands, IIRC), but the evidence present strongly suggests that he was murdered by an Islamistic extremist. Also, when a TV crew interviewed some people from his local mosque, it got relatively clear that there was, if not open support, then at least a sense of understanding, along the lines that "He was offended, and did what he had to do".

So, was that murderer someone flown in from Afgahnistan or Iraq? I guess not, so the poverty argument doesn't really work here. I don't say that all people of the Islamic faith are potential murderers, but lately it seems to me that the capability for violence when it comes to defending their faith is quite big, and "crossing the line" becomes easily justifiable. Remember, we're not talking about someone defending his soil against an invader, but about someone murdering because he had his religious feelings offended.

SIDE NOTE: The Dutch movie-maker and journalist van Gogh (forgot his first name) was murdered some days ago in the Netherlands. Evidence seems to indicate that he was murdered for his views on Islam, foremost for his last movie, "Supression". In this film, which is mainly about the supression of women in Islamistic lands, he for example shows a naked women with lines from the Koran written on her body.

Also, he was murdered quite brutally, first being shot, then having his throat cut and then stabbed. Another thing that suggests to me that in Islam, there might really be a tendency to think of "those not of the faith" as lesser beings whom it is OK to butcher if they misbehave. A tendency, mind you, not saying that every Moslem is an extremist is a murderer... but something worth thinking about.

Take care,

Lord_Olf
[right][snapback]59722[/snapback][/right]

Yes, a couple more demonstrations of the religion of peace like this in Europe, and maybe europeans will wake up, maybe Rembrandt's great-great-great and so on grandson will do the trick? The school bombing was a nice touch, I thought. Noone hurt, and message sent. Nice. Next time something like this happens, there *will* be someone hurt. The best (and most importantly only effective )way to combat the Religion of Peace, is to kill it with the same kindness as they are killing us with. A couple of heads here and there never hurt anyone either. Maybe blowing up 400-500 muslim kids will do the trick. If things keep going the way they're going, and we keep looking the other way, sooner or later these will be the only ways to make them understand that while muslims *are* the most peaceful, christians and jews are pretty peaceful too.



-A

[eppie]

Hail eppie,
I tended to see this the same as you, but some recent things have made me reexamine that point of view. Most recent of them: The van Gogh murder. I'm not 100% sure if they got the murderer yet (you'll know better, being from the Netherlands, IIRC), but the evidence present strongly suggests that he was murdered by an Islamistic extremist. Also, when a TV crew interviewed some people from his local mosque, it got relatively clear that there was, if not open support, then at least a sense of understanding, along the lines that "He was offended, and did what he had to do".

So, was that murderer someone flown in from Afgahnistan or Iraq? I guess not, so the poverty argument doesn't really work here. I don't say that all people of the Islamic faith are potential murderers, but lately it seems to me that the capability for violence when it comes to defending their faith is quite big, and "crossing the line" becomes easily justifiable. Remember, we're not talking about someone defending his soil against an invader, but about someone murdering because he had his religious feelings offended.

[right][snapback]59722[/snapback][/right]

Well they got the guy who did it, more or less directly, he is a muslim extremist, had a higher than average education and had a dutch and a marokan passport.
I think I was not complete in my previous post. I think we all know that this extremism is not only in the middle east anymore but also in europe. (you hear more about mosques were extremist Imams are preaching etc.)
Starting in the middle east a them against us feeling is created. And nobody should be surprised if a fewhundred of the millions of muslims that live in europe chose the wrong path (that oif violence) They get influenced by religious leaders who tell them that the europeans disrespect islam etc.etc.
It is not difficult for some radical Imam from saudi arabia to influence guys which have a bit of psychological problems here in europe to do all kinds of strange things. If they get told to chose a side, they chose the side of the islam, and if they are also told that they other side is the enemy crazy things can happen. And this is exactly the same Bush is doing in his "not with us then against us" speeches.
The most important thing we shouild do is not let this escalate. I'm getting a bit depressed how society in Holland handles this latest event. Because how bad it is and all, it is one murder commited by one guy. There is absolutely no reason to start a civil war here. But warmongers on both sides (here I say it myself :blink: ) for sure will try their best to do so.

[Lord_Olf]

Hail,

Maybe blowing up 400-500 muslim kids will do the trick. -A
[right][snapback]59724[/snapback][/right]

I hope you were just being sarcastic.

To respond in kind and take an eye for an eye just leaves blind people on both sides.

Take care,

Lord_Olf