Author Topic: 9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes  (Read 1499 times)

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #45 on: September 12, 2006, 09:18:11 AM »
momus.. where is the straw man.. the man is very much fanatical flesh and blood...  the nutjobs vigl points out exist.   they are completely against any self determination based on fantatical religious belief.   They murder their own people if their own people stray one iota from the path that their fanatic leaders say is the only way.

They are anti self determination at it's most heinous.

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #46 on: September 12, 2006, 09:22:16 AM »
You've got two of them now? Sweet!

Offline Saintaw

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6692
      • My blog
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #47 on: September 12, 2006, 10:04:26 AM »
Nice to see the veil come off Seagoon.


:lol
Saw
Dirty, nasty furriner.

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #48 on: September 12, 2006, 10:09:41 AM »
Momus,

As you put it, "Yes or No will do."

Yes, people have a God given right to a certain measure of self-determination. However no one has a God given right to do that which is evil, and that includes determining to elect or put in place totalitarian tyrants and ideologies who have indicated their desire to violently suppress or eliminate every other ideology. Therefore, given the contents of Mein Kampf, the moment the German people elected Herr Hitler, the allied powers should have said "enough" and reoccupied Germany.

In the same way, given the content of the Charter of Hamas , the moment the Palestinians elected them, they too should have been reoccupied and corrected.

The difference of course is that it was possible to eliminate the ideology that spurred the election of Hitler in Germany, whereas we do not seem to be able to do that kind of critical thinking any more, thus all our actions fail from a basic category error.

Anyway Momus, what does it matter? If you're right, eventually the American people will replace the Bush administration with an appeasement oriented government that will withdraw American troops from the middle east and peace and happiness will break out.

If I'm right, and I hope I'm not, eventually the American people will replace the Bush administration with an appeasement oriented government that will withdraw American troops from the middle east and the Jihad will continue, and Europe will eventually become a part of the Dar-El-Islam.

Ultimately, my confidence is not in princes and my hope is not in politics. I am a pilgrim passing through this world of ours heading for the heavenly country. The funny thing is, I expect persecution and oppression, and while not happy about it, am prepared to live under it and even to be content in whatever circumstances I find myself. I sense however that many Europeans and Americans won't be. "How could this happen?" will be their lament many years hence.

- SEAGOON
« Last Edit: September 12, 2006, 11:58:14 AM by Seagoon »
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Momus--

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 651
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #49 on: September 12, 2006, 10:26:13 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
If you're right, eventually the American people will replace the Bush administration with an appeasement oriented government that will withdraw American troops from the middle east and peace and happiness will break out


I was with you until this part. 'Tis a shame you feel the need to  misrepresent my position. I think you well know that I've never advocated appeasement, but merely a smarter way of looking dealing with the problem.

I'll get to the point anyway. :)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're generally supportive of the conduct of the "war on terror"? Now assuming for a moment that the neocon rhetoric is genuine and the aim really is to democratise the middle-east, what do you think will be the consequences if broadly islamist governments come to power in the vein of the pro-Iran shia executive currently to be found in Iraq?

How do you reconcile your antipathy to Islam (I hope I'm not overstating this!) with the fact that Islamic governments will be a likely result of the exercise?

Not a trick question; just trying to understand.

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #50 on: September 12, 2006, 01:14:37 PM »
Hello Momus,

Quote
Originally posted by Momus--
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're generally supportive of the conduct of the "war on terror"? Now assuming for a moment that the neocon rhetoric is genuine and the aim really is to democratise the middle-east, what do you think will be the consequences if broadly islamist governments come to power in the vein of the pro-Iran shia executive currently to be found in Iraq?


No, I'm not supportive of the current response to the Islamic Jihad. The attempt to define and fight this as "a war on terror" makes as much sense as attempting to fight a "war on military aviators" after the bombing of Pearl Harbor. I can't tell you the sorrow I feel on Sundays when we pray over young men who are leaving our congregation and their families to go to Iraq and Afghanistan. We are forcing them to fight and win under the same kind of impossible ROEs that we forced young men to fight the Vietnam war under.

For instance, we send them into Afghanistan to engage in a deadly game of cat and mouse in the mountains. Under the current rules they may only engage armed combatants in Afghanistan. In other words, we are going to try to kill these bad guys one by one, after they cross the border and only when they are engaged in an active operations (they now know to cache their weapons when not actually fighting). Meanwhile, we know they are being trained and equipped in camps and Madrassas in Pakistan, but we do nothing to close down the centers of "new Jihadi supply" - it's like the American pilots who flew over ships unloading missile after missile in Haiphong harbor in order to strike ONLY the SAM sites were those missiles were active and operating. It's stupid and gets people killed with very little to show for it.

I am no neo-con btw. If I'm anything politically, I'm very much a paleo-con. I believe it is harmful and counter-productive to erect new pro-Jihad governments and that it is impossible to establish democracies while leaving an ideology that will not tolerate them essentially intact. The least we should be doing, if we can't change the ideology, is insist that consistently Muslim Imams be replaced with Liberal ones, they at least might drive Islamic orthodoxy into the ground and empty the mosques as effectively as liberal Christian ministers have eviscerated orthodoxy and emptied the churches.
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #51 on: September 12, 2006, 01:25:33 PM »
Final thought though Momus,

The obvious question is "why if I think the Administration is making a hash of the war don't I support their opponents?" Well, because I happen to believe that the situation is analogous to being the relative of a patient with a deadly disease and only having two doctors in town to call on.

One doctor thinks the disease is very serious and even potentially deadly, but only believes in prescribing drugs to treat the symptoms as they occur.

The other doctor doubts whether there is really any disease at all, he blames the other doctor for alarming the patient and worrying his family. He cannot offer me any other remedy apart from "fire the other doctor and I'm sure your relative will improve."

I happen to believe that my relative has a real and potentially deadly disease so I'm forced to choose the first doctor as better than nothing and hope that he will at least stop the worst symptoms.

Send me a "Doctor Churchill" who knows the disease is real and deadly and wants to cure the disease itself and not just play with the symptoms, and I'll hire him. But until that time...
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline lazs2

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24886
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #52 on: September 12, 2006, 02:26:46 PM »
momus... speaking for myself.... democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner.

Without a strong bill of rights, democracy can be as evil as any other political system.

I am not a fan of urestricted democracy.

I am a huge fan of democracy with a strong constitution that includes an even stronger bill of rights.

No political system should exist that does not include a list of rights that can not be violated.

a good example of a lousy bill on a "right" is englands bill on the right to keep and bear arms.... a worthless right with no guarentees and...   the results speak for themselves....  many have had their rights trampled on by "democracy".

lazs

Offline -dead-

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1102
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #53 on: September 12, 2006, 02:58:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
Nashwan, I see, so the Memri pieces are yet more Mossad/CIA disinformation designed to spur an attack on Islam? Not too different an opinion from that expressed by the people on the video clips, eh?


Nashwan's view has some friends in high places:

"They are selective and act as propagandists for their political point of view, which is the extreme-right of Likud," said Vincent Cannistraro, former head of the CIA's counterintelligence's unit. "They simply don't present the whole picture."
"They were fund-raising together in D.C. to create this institute," said Mr. Cannistraro, the former CIA official. "They asked me to come on board but I refused because I saw this was capped by Israeli intelligence" — referring to Mr. Carmon and his spear-heading of the project —"and because it was too political."
Forward 7th Dec 2001


William Rugh, former US ambassador to the United Arab Emirates and Yemen, says of MEMRI:
"This service does not present a balanced or complete picture of the Arab print media. Its owners are pro-Israeli and anti-Arab. Quotes are selected to portray Arabs as preaching hatred against Jews and westerners, praising violence and refusing any peaceful settlement of the Palestinian issue."
Guardian September 28, 2005
β€œThe FBI has no hard evidence connecting Usama Bin Laden to 9/11.” --  Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI, June 5, 2006.

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6142
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #54 on: September 12, 2006, 11:17:56 PM »
I think this backs up Seagoons original link.

Just because you dont like the source, or the sources owners doesnt necessarily mean what they say isnt true.

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/conspiracy_cranks_opedcolumnists_james_b__meigs.htm

Quote
Conspiracy theories alleging that 9/11 was a U.S. government operation are rapidly infiltrating the mainstream. These notions are advanced by hundreds of books, over a million Web pages and even in some college classrooms. The movie "Loose Change," a slick roundup of popular conspiracy claims, has become an Internet sensation.

Worse, these fantasies are gaining influence on the international stage. French author Thierry Meyssan's "The Big Lie," which argues that the U.S. military orchestrated the attacks, was a bestseller in France, and his claims have been widely repeated in European and Middle Eastern media. And recent surveys reveal that, even in moderate Muslim countries such as Turkey and Jordan, majorities of the public believe that no Arab terrorists were involved in the attacks.
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Saintaw

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6692
      • My blog
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #55 on: September 13, 2006, 04:57:25 AM »
Seagoon,

I take it that all muslims are evil (that's counting about the fifth of the world population... no hard numbers, just from the top of my head)... and they are all there to 'get us'. ok, fine.

Since you don't seem happy with the way things are going... what do you propose? What is your (final- snicker) solution?
Saw
Dirty, nasty furriner.

Offline WhiteHawk

  • Parolee
  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1815
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #56 on: September 13, 2006, 06:36:05 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by RAIDER14
9-11-01 kinda graphic


Whats your point?

Offline Seagoon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2396
      • http://www.providencepca.com
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #57 on: September 13, 2006, 02:40:04 PM »
Hello Saw,

Quote
Originally posted by Saintaw
Seagoon,

I take it that all muslims are evil (that's counting about the fifth of the world population... no hard numbers, just from the top of my head)... and they are all there to 'get us'. ok, fine.

Since you don't seem happy with the way things are going... what do you propose? What is your (final- snicker) solution?


A friend of mine jokingly suggested that we bomb the 10/40 window with X-boxes, Pot, and Pornography until they are as inudated with slackers as we are, and thus paralyze the Jihad. But all kidding aside.

To tell the truth, I'm glad that I'm not a civil magistrate, because I can't think of much that would be feasible given the current state of the world. Most of the solutions would require both a long term alliance with like-minded countries, and the willingness to continue to fight for an objective until that objective is achieved regardless of how long it takes, and in a Western world that wants televised victories in 2 weeks and which isn't sure whether it prefers Hezbollah and Hamas to Israel and America, I'm not either of those goals are possible.

But I think a few common sense changes in our approach are necessary at the very least. See if you think the following are unreasonable.

1) Stop misdefining the problem as "terrorism" - no one dies for terrorism, terrorism is a means, not a movement or an end. We cannot defeat terrorism any more than we can defeat "bombs."

If we are unwilling to examine Islam, so be it, lets at least define the problem more accurately and precisely as "Jihadism" - Jihad is also a means to an end, but at least people are actually signing up to be Jihadis or Shahidis and we are actually fighting an ideological orientation that way.

2) Identify the ideologies that accept, encourage, or promote "Jihadism" as unacceptable and the enemies of freedom. This will mean that we are saying Wahabbism and Salafism are unacceptable. Indicate that we will do all that we can to suppress and eliminate those ideologies where we can. This will mean banning the importation of Wahhabbi media (books, tapes, videos) into our countries, deporting Wahabbi Imams, and closing down Maddrassas and Masjids that teach those doctrines.

3) Refuse to allow countries that do not allow freedom of religion in their own nations to build houses of worship, sponsor clergy, or send in religious materials. Make it clear that until non-Muslims are allowed to freely practice their religions in Saudi Arabia and build houses of worship, the Saudis may not pour money into the construction of Islamic centers in the USA or Europe. Deny visas to citizens of those countries coming in to serve as Imams, if they would deny visas to missionaries trying to enter their own country. Deport foriegn Imams who try to get around the rules by entering under false pretenses (and yes, they also do that to missionaries - and worse - in their own countries).

4) Indicate that in order to qualify as being "our friends" you will also have to reject and work against Wahabbism and Salafism. This will mean that we will no longer accept the Pakistanis tolerating or encouraging Jihadist Masjids, Maddrassas, and training camps on their side of the border. Indicate that if they will not cooperate in closing them down permanently, we will take military action against those training centers proven to be sending Jihadis in ourselves.

5) Stop affording Islam "specially protected status" in our societies. Even the playing field. If people can ridicule Christianity, why should Islam be any different? If Muslims can proselytize without it being a "hate crime", evangelizing Muslims should not be a hate crime either.

Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, note that all of them are simply applying the same rules that we have to play by to Islam. It's my belief that if their society were as religiously open as ours, that Islam could not compete and would begin to wither. Sharia law however, keeps it artificially protected.
SEAGOON aka Pastor Andy Webb
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion... Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams

Offline Saintaw

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6692
      • My blog
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #58 on: September 14, 2006, 02:35:34 AM »
Good morning,

Quote
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hello Saw,

 

A friend of mine jokingly suggested that we bomb the 10/40 window with X-boxes, Pot, and Pornography until they are as inudated with slackers as we are, and thus paralyze the Jihad. But all kidding aside.

I like that idea as well :)

If we are unwilling to examine Islam, so be it, lets at least define the problem more accurately and precisely as "Jihadism" - Jihad is also a means to an end, but at least people are actually signing up to be Jihadis or Shahidis and we are actually fighting an ideological orientation that way.

It's going to be hard to differentiate(?) those from the common folks. there's no particular ID card if you sign up for that sort of thing i guess.

2) Identify the ideologies that accept, encourage, or promote "Jihadism" as unacceptable and the enemies of freedom. This will mean that we are saying Wahabbism and Salafism are unacceptable. Indicate that we will do all that we can to suppress and eliminate those ideologies where we can. This will mean banning the importation of Wahhabbi media (books, tapes, videos) into our countries, deporting Wahabbi Imams, and closing down Maddrassas and Masjids that teach those doctrines.

Agreed, but this you can only do on territories you control.

3) Refuse to allow countries that do not allow freedom of religion in their own nations to build houses of worship, sponsor clergy, or send in religious materials. Make it clear that until non-Muslims are allowed to freely practice their religions in Saudi Arabia and build houses of worship, the Saudis may not pour money into the construction of Islamic centers in the USA or Europe. Deny visas to citizens of those countries coming in to serve as Imams, if they would deny visas to missionaries trying to enter their own country. Deport foriegn Imams who try to get around the rules by entering under false pretenses (and yes, they also do that to missionaries - and worse - in their own countries).

Agreed

4) Indicate that in order to qualify as being "our friends" you will also have to reject and work against Wahabbism and Salafism. This will mean that we will no longer accept the Pakistanis tolerating or encouraging Jihadist Masjids, Maddrassas, and training camps on their side of the border. Indicate that if they will not cooperate in closing them down permanently, we will take military action against those training centers proven to be sending Jihadis in ourselves.


Agreed, especialy(?) thinking about Turkey entering the EU here...

5) Stop affording Islam "specially protected status" in our societies. Even the playing field. If people can ridicule Christianity, why should Islam be any different? If Muslims can proselytize without it being a "hate crime", evangelizing Muslims should not be a hate crime either.


This is how we deal with all minorities, not that I like it... but it's the way it is in the western world. (I see a lot on these boards crying about that 'affirmative action' too, if you catch my drift)

Those are just a few that I can think of off the top of my head, note that all of them are simply applying the same rules that we have to play by to Islam. It's my belief that if their society were as religiously open as ours, that Islam could not compete and would begin to wither. Sharia law however, keeps it artificially protected.


The above still deals with the people in western countries mostly. A large majority of 'agressive' muslims are in Africa / Asia.

I'm kinda dissapointed you didn't propose anything that included mass extermination openly though ;)
Saw
Dirty, nasty furriner.

Offline RedRadr

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 80
9/11 through Arab and Iranian Eyes
« Reply #59 on: September 14, 2006, 10:34:55 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Saintaw
Good morning,





I'm kinda dissapointed you didn't propose anything that included mass extermination openly though ;)



            well, if he want, I will...