Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Toad on May 16, 2004, 02:16:29 PM
-
Powell: Arab world should be more outraged (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/05/16/powell.berg/index.html)
-
Let's see. Conservative webboard poster, conservative radio and the conservative Secretary of State all vainly try to make a point out of nothing. Seeing as there has been a LOT of what you and they say aint there.
Wow. BIG surpise.
Regardless of that. I honestly used to have alot of respect for Powell. I thought he had more intelligence and integrity than Bush, Cheney and Rumsfiled all combined on thier best day. Till he became a "tool" for the Axis of Weasels.
-
I don't know if anyone watched Meet the Press on Sunday, but there was a very odd occurance. Emily Miller, who is one of Powell's press secretaries tried to shut the interview down early just as Tim Russert was asking a sensitive question:
http://algraffix.nstemp.com/powellMTP.wmv
Her voice is kinda muffled, but as she is knocking the camera away she says:
Emily: No. They can't use it. They're editing it. They (unintelligible).
Transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4992558/)
Emily Miller is formerly from Tom Delay's office.
Oh...later on Russert had McCain on and he gave the funniest damn response when he was asked about possibly joining Kerry as his Veep. Watch the wmv and then scroll about 3/4 way down the transcript where Russert says, "it's the elephant in the room". The whole Meet the Press crew was laughing.
-
mmm McCain as SecDef is a mighty big carrot too...
-
LOL. Guess the world would have been satisfied if some Lieutenant apologized for Abu Grahib and the US let it go at that.
-
I caught McCain's reference to the palm tree on the show but I didn't get the joke because I missed the Powell interview. Too funny. :D
-
The myth of Muslim silence with regards to the Berg murder was destroyed in the last thread on this topic. Though I expect nothing less from the average, ignorant O'Club poster, what is Powell's excuse for this grandstanding?
-
Righto!
There's yet to be a leading Islamic cleric denounce this from the Mosque.
-
Maybe the media just doesn't want us to know about all the Muslim Leaders that are loudly decrying the incident?
-
Originally posted by Toad
There's yet to be a leading Islamic cleric denounce this from the Mosque.
I eagerly await you to demonstrate how you determined this to be true. It must've required quite a lot of work - transcripts of all the words of these mysterious "leading clerics" spoken "from the Mosque," translated into English, and searched for relevant passages.
-
Or in Toad's case... he couldn't find anything about it on google. :)
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
The myth of Muslim silence with regards to the Berg murder was destroyed in the last thread on this topic. Though I expect nothing less from the average, ignorant O'Club poster, what is Powell's excuse for this grandstanding?
Bull*****.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Bull*****.
You think Powell was bull****ing?
-
Nothing as malicious a bull****ting.
I like to think of it as spreading gossip. :D
-
By reading a wide variety of news online, particularly non-US sources.
Of course, you determine that the leading clerics have spoken out against it by the absence of any such reports in the media.
-
But what about the ARAB STREET!!! The ARAB STREET!!!
Lets ask Robert Fisk...
-
The arab on the street was tickled pink seeing an american lose his head in such a brutal manner.
-
Oooh SHOCKER! :eek:
-
Originally posted by Toad
By reading a wide variety of news online, particularly non-US sources.
Of course, you determine that the leading clerics have spoken out against it by the absence of any such reports in the media.
I welcome you to find where I have determined anything like that. You'd waste your time doing so, however, because I haven't.
Unlike you, I am able to see the issue as undetermined. Not in the least because I don't know who these leading clerics are (and I have the sneaking suspicion you don't, either) or what exactly "the Mosque" entails. But I can evaluate cases for and against, and the one you have provided - based entirely on an appeal to ignorance, is about as weak as they come. Of course, any positive evidence you might provide later, of the sort I mentioned in my previous post, would be welcome. I won't hold my breath, though.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
You think Powell was bull****ing?
I'll humor ya. I was referring to what you said as bull*****. There has been no other thread that "destroyed" the myth of Muslim silence. Imagine if you will the Muslim outrage if US personnel had brutally decapitated a bound prisoner on video instead of showing them naked. There has been and continues to be a deafening silence among Muslim leaders that speaks quite clearly to those with ears to hear.
-
".... a deafening silence ... that speaks quite clearly to those with ears to hear."
More like those with thier index fingers stuck in thier ears, thier heads buried in the sand or Rush playing on the radio so loud they can't hear anything else.
You, Toad and the other two or three folks knock yourselves out pretending that there's "deafening silence." It's your illusion and obviously anyone that shows otherwise is ignored or the goa posts moved.
"... couldn't find anything about it on google."
Trying to surf for news from Middle Eastern sources has been very difficult the past several weeks. I'm not one to yell "consipiracy" but it really does seem as though that is being purposefuly when I get constant "unable to connect due to network problems" errors on mutliple ISP's (work, home and inlaws)
-
Originally posted by Westy
".... a deafening silence ... that speaks quite clearly to those with ears to hear."
More like those with thier index fingers stuck in thier ears, thier heads buried in the sand or Rush playing on the radio so loud they can't hear anything else.
You, Toad and the other two or three folks knock yourselves out pretending that there's "deafening silence." It's your illusion and obviously anyone that shows otherwise is ignored or the goa posts moved.
"... couldn't find anything about it on google."
Trying to surf for news from Middle Eastern sources has been very difficult the past several weeks. I'm not one to yell "consipiracy" but it really does seem as though that is being purposefuly when I get constant "unable to connect due to network problems" errors on mutliple ISP's (work, home and inlaws)
At least the "two or three" of us are in good company with Colin Powell. Company I much prefer to that of someone with their head up Islam's posterior.
-
"someone with their head up Islam's posterior."
Beside being a party puppet you're a clown too. You're so multifaceted.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
II don't know who these leading clerics are (and I have the sneaking suspicion you don't, either)
Start with of Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in Iraq itself. He's reputedly the leader of the Shiites in Iraq.. Were he to clearly condemn this it would be a huge statement.
Then on to the senior clerics at the three most important Islamic shrines. Ka'ba at Mecca (al-Haram al-Makki al-Sharif);for Muslims, this mosque is the holiest spot on Earth. The second is the Mosque of the Prophet Muhammad in Ma dina, Saudi Arabia. Third, the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, the Aqsa Mosque (the Haram al-Sharif).
Hearing from these clerics would be the equivalent of the Pope speaking out against something to Catholics everywhere.
No far less likely but probably more important would be Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's condemnation of this act. He's THE authority in Iran, period. He's found time to say this:
"Addressing theological students, the Supreme Leader stressed that the world of Islam, in particular the Shiites along with the entire Iranian nation, will not tolerate the profanity committed by US military forces on Islam`s holy shrines in Iraqi cities. Denouncing the torture of Iraqi prisoners by US forces which have been exposed only recently, Ayatollah Khamenei referred to the US system as being an icon of hatred, oppression and indifference towards human dignity.
"Today, the US in Iraq and the occupying regime in Palestine are committing the most shameful acts in human history, the Supreme Leader stressed.
But I guess he just hasn't had time to condemn the beheading of Berg.
Are these guys simply to obscure for you? Are they the "8th Immam on the 33rd step of the 2nd minerat of the sunni mosque located on the central plains of Iran"?
If you think so, you really concerned yourself with who leads Islam in that area.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'll humor ya. I was referring to what you said as bull*****. There has been no other thread that "destroyed" the myth of Muslim silence. Imagine if you will the Muslim outrage if US personnel had brutally decapitated a bound prisoner on video instead of showing them naked. There has been and continues to be a deafening silence among Muslim leaders that speaks quite clearly to those with ears to hear.
Maybe you missed the thread, but there are plenty of Arab Muslim political and religious authorities who went on the record in condemning the murder. To continue claim there is a "defening silence among Muslim leaders" is dishonest.
-
No, there isn't.
At very best, there a few that might qualify as "authorities".
-
There definately are, they're just not the ones you've chosen today to be acceptable authorities. That's all subject to further revision, of course.
Your attempt to change the subject from "no leading cleric has condemned this" to "well, but I haven't read anything from these guys" is duly noted.
-
Other than the Egyptian Mosque, the British Council and maybe one or two others, there isn't.
Your attempt to pretend that there is general condemnation of this act by Islamic "authorities" is duly noted.
-
You are mistaken. There is no pretending going on - at least from this side of the discussion. Myself and others have presented evidence of the condemnation of the murder by mainstream Muslim authorities. There's not much we can do, however, if some prefer to continue running around with their eyes closed and their fingers in their ears because it doesn't help their agenda.
-
As I said, you've presented little at all. Which makes Powell's case and the case of all those who realize the Muslim "authorities" have been nearly mute.
-
Toad, you're pretending that these "mute authorities" are somehow above the political realities that ALL politicians are slave to. You want them to stand up in righteous indignation. They want to keep their jobs. Is this really so different in the West?
-
Originally posted by Westy
"someone with their head up Islam's posterior."
Beside being a party puppet you're a clown too. You're so multifaceted.
Sorry mate, but I have to steal that...classic
Tronsky
-
Nash, by their silence they reek of complicity.
What they are doing is setting the stage for the next round of the Crusades.
In their time they led the world in science and military prowess.
It's clear neither of those attributes would currently be accorded to them.
Keep their jobs or save their culture?
Time to speak out.
-
If it had been Christians that commited this atrocity in the name of Christ you guys defending the Muslims would be demanding the resignation of the Pope, Billy Graham, and Mr T. Spare us your hypocracy. :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Toad
Nash, by their silence they reek of complicity.
Or political savvy. I don't think we need to belabour a point you get.
Originally posted by Toad
What they are doing is setting the stage for the next round of the Crusades.
Takes two to tango, no? Everyone's doing their part. Er wait, not exactly everybody....
Originally posted by Toad
In their time they led the world in science and military prowess.
"In their time"? They haven't accomplished anything for at least the last 100 years. It's all awry.
Originally posted by Toad
Time to speak out.
Conditions being what they are... They're wise to stay tight lipped. And let things play out just as is.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Or political savvy. I don't think we need to belabour a point you get.
Takes two to tango, no? Everyone's doing their part. Er wait, not exactly everybody....
"In their time"? They haven't accomplished anything for at least the last 100 years. It's all awry.
Conditions being what they are... They're wise to stay tight lipped. And let things play out just as is.
Nash, could you please tell me what horrible thing the US did
to the muslims to generate all this bile? I really, truly do not
understand. Since you seem to sympathize so strongly with them
I'd like to hear your views.
-
I'm sure Nash has his own ideas about how Middle Easterners feel towards the US but I can answer your question in one word: Israel.
-
Don't jump to assumptions.
I think both Al-Sistani and Khameni could speak out against this. They make the politics in Iraq and Iran.
There's an Eisenhower quote about the post-war period with the Russians to the effect that there was a point where the American people would consider it far better to militarily solve the problem than to be continually in a shadow war. Didn't happen but I think Ike had a good understanding of his fellow countrymen.
I'd say more like almost 1000 years. Something they should reflect upon.
I think they'd be very wise to try and convince the world that Muslims aren't really condoning this behavior.
Feel free t o disagree. Because I think we always will.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Nash, could you please tell me what horrible thing the US did
to the muslims to generate all this bile? I really, truly do not
understand. Since you seem to sympathize so strongly with them
I'd like to hear your views.
Yer gettin' me all wrong.
The US has certainly been engaged, and sometimes detrimentally so, in other countries' affairs. But this middle east thing... The ones who are wreaking havok, they are nuts. Prolly ok people to have a beer with one to one etc., but no... They're gonna need to evolve as a culture by their own accomplishments, mistakes, needs. Take out the terrorists wherever, whenever... absolutely. But trying to take over a middle eastern country?
This war is misjudgement at its most arrogant.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I'm sure Nash has his own ideas about how Middle Easterners feel towards the US but I can answer your question in one word: Israel.
Isreal? Nah.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yer gettin' me all wrong.
The US has certainly been engaged, and sometimes detrimentally so, in other countries' affairs. But this middle east thing... The ones who are wreaking havok, they are nuts. Prolly ok people to have a beer with one to one etc., but no... They're gonna need to evolve as a culture by their own accomplishments, mistakes, needs. Take out the terrorists wherever, whenever... absolutely. But trying to take over a middle eastern country?
This war is misjudgement at its most arrogant.
The Russians tried to "take over" Afghanistan, and failed miserably. The US is only trying to foster democracy there and will leave once democracy has gained a foothold. It became obvious to us on 9/11 that we must must bring the Arabs into the 21st century even if they kick and scream the whole way.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Don't jump to assumptions.
Toad there was a wickedly good article in Harpers a few years ago about all the interventionist type wars that have been going on for the last 60 years.
It basically said that earlier, there would be wars, and there would be winners. Problem solved.
Nowadays the world community or whatever ya wanna call it jumps in and creates an uneasy peace. This so-called peace lasts for generations and ends up killing more people than a to-the-death war would.
Al Queda attacked you. You attacked back and wiped out an entire government. So far, so good.
Iraq?
It doesn't fit. And you're gonna find that out.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Iraq?
It doesn't fit. And you're gonna find that out.
Are you a prophet? psychic? time traveller? Or "arrogant" enough to think you can predict the future?
-
None of the above.
Just a pretty astute observer of the past. Hasn't failed me yet.
-
Originally posted by Nash
None of the above.
Just a pretty astute observer of the past. Hasn't failed me yet.
Nash, at 28 I might have believed something like that of myself too! :)
-
If ousting Hussein does nothing more than strike fear into every despotic dictator, as it apprarently has in at least two, then imo, mission accomplished.
-
What if it ultimately demonstrates that you are powerless over there? Ever think of that?
Kind of like the saying "it's better to keep yer trap zipped than to say anything and remove all doubt." (whatever it is)
Well, yer now fully involved in a soliloquay and ya better make a damned good speech now or yer hooped.
-
Not what I'm saying.
As to Iraq, let's look at a few of the possible outcomes, simplified, of course.
1. They do achieve a resonable form of democracy over the next decade. (Yeah, decade. As someone pointed out, look at Korea. Takes time to do this stuff; but look at Korea now. Not too bad.)
A good thing, much better than before.
2. They fail to achieve a democracy and institute a theocracy on the order of Iran.
Well, no problemo, really unless they screw it up badly. If they just go along doing their thing, no one will really care. If they act up and get in the terrorism biz...... like Arnold, we'll probably be back.
3. They fall into another strongman dictatorship. We'll probably not allow that very long. Just a feeling, a guess. We'd probably be back, IMO.
So, we'll see, won't we? My feeling is they'll end up with a democratic government. There may well be some bloody Iraqi v Iraqi fighting before that happens though. I think some of what's going on now is in that vein. Various religious power struggles and even the possibility of some Kurd/Sunni/Shiite action as they struggle to hold the reins. Who really knows?
I believe this. The "Average Abdul" in the street knows there's a huge upside potential to having SH gone and some sort of elected government in his place. The question is will they be courageous enough to make a grab at a better future.
See, they're going to have to stand up for what's right. Sooner or later. Or else they get what they had most likely.
-
Originally posted by Nash
What if it ultimately demonstrates that you are powerless over there? Ever think of that?
Kind of like the saying "it's better to keep yer trap zipped than to say anything and remove all doubt." (whatever it is)
Well, yer now fully involved in a soliloquay and ya better make a damned good speech now or yer hooped.
I agree with ya. Which is why it pisses me off when my spineless countrymen moan, wail, and cry doom and despair at our efforts there. Much like Vietnam, only we can defeat ourselves.
-
I want to know what exactly is bad about the US action in Iraq? Can somone point out the negative aspects of the war in Iraq?
-
Originally posted by Toad
I believe this. The "Average Abdul" in the street knows there's a huge upside potential to having SH gone and some sort of elected government in his place. The question is will they be courageous enough to make a grab at a better future.
See, they're going to have to stand up for what's right. Sooner or later. Or else they get what they had most likely.
Lemme guess... Your favorite movies are the Hobbit and the geeky kid from england with the glasses.
Man....
You conviently missed the 4th option. A vietnam-style retreat. Civil war, total chaos. Or an occupation that lasts umpteen years, costs untold amounts of lives and a kazillion dollars.
However right it is for some cleric to denounce some kid's death over there, it's fantasy-land.
-
I love taking an argument down to it's essence. Can somebody explain what is bad about the US invasion of Iraq?
-
Well not to be a bummer and all...
But what's bad about it is that you will lose.
What's worse is that people are gonna take notice.
-
Nash, god I love yah, but.... can you tell me what is bad so far about the invasion of Iraq?
-
Only if you can tell me what's good about it. :D
-
Saddam Hussein is no longer in power, we already accomplished our goal. How can we lose?
-
You're joking, right ?
Well in top of the list would be invading an independent country because of fabricated accusations and occupying it.
-
That's nifty and all, but was that really the goal? And was it a good one?
If simply removing Hussein from power was the real ultimate goal, oh my!:eek:
Lotsa ways to skin a cat. Without gettin skinned in the process.
Well ya got him now, why aint the troops home? What's happenin'?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Only if you can tell me what's good about it. :D
can't answer?
I can tell you what is good....but I am not the one making an issue of it.
You first, then I promise an answer.
-
I just want one person to list what is bad about the invasion of Iraq.
-
You want it more than me Nuke. You go first. :)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I want to know what exactly is bad about the US action in Iraq? Can somone point out the negative aspects of the war in Iraq?
Are you kidding? How about thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis.
Secondly.
"If ousting Hussein does nothing more than strike fear into every despotic dictator, as it apprarently has in at least two, then imo, mission accomplished."
Well, I know one isn't Kadaffi, he's been trying to make friends with the west of years now. I don't know who the other is, unless you mean the Syrians. If I was a dictator I would be breathing a sigh of relief right now. Bush pissed away an amazing amount of support for the US over this. Do you honestly think that the US people, your Congress and the international community would give any support what-so-ever to another war? I don't think so.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Are you kidding? How about thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis.
Secondly.
"If ousting Hussein does nothing more than strike fear into every despotic dictator, as it apprarently has in at least two, then imo, mission accomplished."
Well, I know one is Kadaffi, he's been trying to make friends with the west of years now. I don't know who the other is, unless you mean the Syrians. If I was a dictator I would be breathing a sigh of relief right now. Bush pissed away an amazing amount of support for the US over this. Do you honestly think that the US people, your Congress and the international community would give any support what-so-ever to another war? I don't think so.
compaired to 400k Iraqis killed by Saddam? You are kidding, right?
-
I'm gonna totally mangle another analogy or metaphor or, damn, I mangled the thing I am mangling.
How does it go? Better the devil you know than the devil you don't?
Fuggit, something like that. And it answers your question.
-
no one can make a rational argument that states the invasion of Iraq was a bad event. I want someone to list the things they feel are bad about the invasion of Iraq.
I'ts a simple question
-
Folks are dying for nothing.
Hows that?
-
Folks in Iraq under Saddam where dying for nothing.
List the bad things about the invasion of Iraq.
Nash, you are a smart guy.... I would think you could realise your lack of a response might tell you something
-
Jesus Nuke....
You lot want to save the poor wittle Iraqis while at the same time condemn their backwards arses for not speaking up against beheadings.
IT'S shreckING BEDLAM OVER THERE. IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR OVER A CENTURY.
You gotta be all hopped up on goofballs to think yer gonna wander into it and make it all cozy.
Cuz you aint. Cuz you can't.
You had 'em contained. shreck.
At least for the most part it's what everyone believed. But now the veil is comin' down harsh off of that little fantasy. Bahhh wtg.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Jesus Nuke....
You lot want to, at the same time, save the poor wittle Iraqis while at the same time condemn their backwards arses for not speaking up against beheadings.
IT'S shreckING BEDLAM OVER THERE. IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR OVER A CENTURY.
You gotta be all hopped up on goofballs to think yer gonna wander into it and make it all cozy.
Cuz you aint. Cuz you can't.
You had 'em contained. shreck.
At least for the most part it's what everyone believed. But now the veil is comin' down harsh off of that little fantasy.
well I got you upset, but I didn't get you to list what you feel is bad about the invasion of Iraq.
p.s. I love you anyway
-
p.s. my IQ is sorta high, like I am sure your's is......:aok
-
Nuke, I listed two things. Neat trick just ignoring one but I don't think anyone is going to buy it.
As to my first point.
"compaired to 400k Iraqis killed by Saddam?"
Because SH killed 400K the US killing over 10K (and that's just civilians) is a fine?
Let me make this simple for you. Do you think that the US military is a good thing or a bad thing, no equivocation please.
Dare I bring up the fact that an estimated 1,000,000 Iraqis died as a result of poor drinking water during the 90's? The reason that they had poor drinking water is because during the Gulf War the US government decided to destroy Iraqi electrical power generation infrastructure, knowing that this would lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths. When it comes to killing Iraqis the US makes SH look like an amature.
Now a third point. The war has cost the US well over $100,000,000,000. Money that the US doesn't have.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
The myth of Muslim silence with regards to the Berg murder was destroyed in the last thread on this topic. Though I expect nothing less from the average, ignorant O'Club poster, what is Powell's excuse for this grandstanding?
Mr Powell obviously needs a link to the Ah BBS!!
-
Originally posted by Nash
However right it is for some cleric to denounce some kid's death over there, it's fantasy-land.
I don't think option 4 is an option. If it happens, that's the end of the US as a world power. Now, being at heart an isolationist, that'd actually be fine by me. I just think even the most foolish of the pols in DC realize that and won't accept it.
So, it's fantasy-land to expect them to act like responsible leaders of their followers?
Wonder where that leads?
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Well, I know one isn't Kadaffi, he's been trying to make friends with the west of years now.
Yah, shure. I love this one. Guess he wasn't trying REAL hard though.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
US government decided to destroy Iraqi electrical power generation infrastructure, knowing that this would lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths.
Mainly they destroyed it knowing it would save a lot of Coalition troopers' lives. No electricity, no "modern warfare capability" for the Iraqis. The C3 function goes away. It's this war thing, where you try to save your soldiers' lives.
Secondly, this is purest BS:
When it comes to killing Iraqis the US makes SH look like an amature.
What's worse is you know it too and posted it anyway.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
If it had been Christians that commited this atrocity in the name of Christ you guys defending the Muslims would be demanding the resignation of the Pope, Billy Graham, and Mr T. Spare us your hypocracy. :rolleyes:
I cannot speak for others, but in that case I would not. Much like I wouldn't hold the Pope accountable for the terrorist bombings of abortion clinics and murder of such facility's staff by Christians.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
I cannot speak for others, but in that case I would not. Much like I wouldn't hold the Pope accountable for the terrorist bombings of abortion clinics and murder of such facility's staff by Christians.
Good point. While many Christians consider abortion murder, many prominent Christian leaders have spoken out loudly against this violence against abortionists.
-
Originally posted by Toad
As I said, you've presented little at all. Which makes Powell's case and the case of all those who realize the Muslim "authorities" have been nearly mute.
Uh huh. So when the highest Sunni authorities condemn the murder, simply change the goalposts and demand the handwritten notes delivered via carrier pigeon from the Shia. But I am glad to see you admit that the entire case of Powell and others rests on the fallacy that a lack of evidence for a proposition proves that its negation is true.
-
Get real.
Your Sunni reference has been acknowledged. That's about it as far as true "Islamic authorities" go. Note well Sunnis are the minority in the area of conflict. Note well those Sunnis are based at a Mosque in Egypt, considered the 7th "holiest" site in Islam.
You also have the British Muslim Council. Also a bit far away from the area of conflict and certainly having dubious influence on those doing the killing and those caught in the crossfire.
Basically, you have Westy's famous "8th Mullah on the 3rd step of the Mosque".
I understand why you have to keep returning to these two examples, however.
It's because there IS no condemnation from Al-Sistani, clearly THE religious leader in Shiite Iraq. Nor is there one from Kahmeni, THE religious leader in Shiite Iran. Nor is there anything from the three holiest Mosques in Isalm as has been noted before.
In short and once again you've got little to show from the "authorities" of Islam. What you do have is from the lower levels of leadership.
Continue to deny the undeniable. :)
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Good point. While many Christians consider abortion murder, many prominent Christian leaders have spoken out loudly against this violence against abortionists.
Right. Whether in the West or the Middle East, there are going to be unsavory, fringe elements that approve and justify of these acts. But the reaction of the moderate mainstream in both cases has been fairly comparable.
-
Horsepucky. There's zippo from Iraqi, Iranian, Syrian or even Libyan Muslim leaders. You've got the one Sunni Mosque in Egypt, the British Muslim Council and I also saw the Northern California Muslim society speak out.
YGBSM.
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Right. Whether in the West or the Middle East, there are going to be unsavory, fringe elements that approve and justify of these acts. But the reaction of the moderate mainstream in both cases has been fairly comparable.
I'd like to believe that but I am skeptical. Consider an article ran by Al Jazeera. The title was US angry at beheading or something similar. They interviewed a "man on the street" who basically said this atrocity was deserved by the US. A cleric, who while he denounced the act, at the same time said something about the rule must be the same for all, whatever the hell meant, maybe implying it was the fault of the US that this happened?
From the lack of response I'm inclined to believe that while most Muslims abhor this sort of violence, many, if not most of them would be happy to see every American in the middle east instantly smitten by Allah.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Yah, shure. I love this one. Guess he wasn't trying REAL hard though.
How do you figure?
Mainly they destroyed it knowing it would save a lot of Coalition troopers' lives. No electricity, no "modern warfare capability" for the Iraqis. The C3 function goes away. It's this war thing, where you try to save your soldiers' lives.
No it isn't it's an American thing.
"Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977."
...
"2. It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as food-stuffs, agricultural areas for the production of foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive.
3. The prohibitions in paragraph 2 shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party: (a) as sustenance solely for the members of its armed forces; or (b) if not as sustenance, then in direct support of military action, provided, however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
Abount 150 nations ratified the second Protocol, the US was not one of them.
What's worse is you know it too and posted it anyway.
Yeah well, one million to four hundred thousand.
-
for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population
It wasn't. It wasn't "aimed" at the civilian population in any way.
... shall not apply to such of the objects covered by it as are used by an adverse Party:... in direct support of military action,
Clearly the electrical generating was in direct support of military action.
may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
It didn't. You are aware you can also boil water, right? I'll bet there were and still are areas of Iraq where that's been the procedure since time began.
There's no way you can make the case that the electrical grid isn't a military target in time of war. Well, maybe Lawyer Thrawn can but no one else with a clear understanding of war would even try.
SH's death toll at a mere 1 million? US killed 400,000?
Document the 400,000 please and omit the BS like "destroyed electrical grid, killed XXXXXX" and omit "sanctions killed XXXXX". Just US as the direct cause of death please. Like SH was the direct cause of death to the Kurds and Shiites during the rebellion.
-
Originally posted by Toad
Get real.
Your Sunni reference has been acknowledged. That's about it as far as true "Islamic authorities" go. Note well Sunnis are the minority in the area of conflict. Note well those Sunnis are based at a Mosque in Egypt, considered the 7th "holiest" site in Islam.
Al-Azhar is the highest authority in Sunni Islam regardless of its ranking as a holy site. Sunnis are majority populations in such insignificant countries as Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Libya, Pakistan, and Turkey. You discount this source at the expense of your own credibility.
Sunni leaders are not the only ones to condemn this killing, as has been shown previously. You were already provided a story on Iraqi Shiite leaders. The political leadership of the UAE, the closest Arab country outside Iraq and Iran with a Shiite majority, has also condemned the killing. Even the militant Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah has condemned the killing. Whether or not any of these fit your daily re-definition of "true Muslim leaders" is not anything I can control - but for those who can approach this issue with the slightest bit of honesty, there you have it.
I understand why you have to keep returning to these two examples, however.
It's because there IS no condemnation from Al-Sistani, clearly THE religious leader in Shiite Iraq. Nor is there one from Kahmeni, THE religious leader in Shiite Iran. Nor is there anything from the three holiest Mosques in Isalm as has been noted before.
"I don't have evidence for p. Therefore, not-p."
I understand why you keep returning to this fallacious argument form.
It's because you really have nothing to contribute but your manufactured indignation.
-
What was supplied was the Iraq Governing Council's condemnation. You're putting them forth as a religious authority?
Beyond that, again, you've got Al-Azhar ONLY speaking out in the Middle East and the British Muslim Council and the Northern California Muslims chiming in from a distance.
The religious powers that be in the battlezone are silent. These are, as you know, Sistani and Khameni.
If you were the least bit honest you'd admit there hasn't been any real condemnation.
-
I don’t have the patience to argue over what the meaning of “is” is. I’m starting to feel embarrassed for you. So it’s time to put a nail in this coffin. In recap:
5/12, Toad hasn't seen any condemnation from any Muslim:
However, I don't see ANY of the "Islam is a religion of peace" Mullahs or Clerics speaking out against this. I see no Fatwah condemning these killers. In fact, there is only silence from the peaceful religion of Islam and all its followers. Well, except for the followers of Islam that are openly rejoicing in this murder of a civilian, of course.
Once Westy pointed out that Muslims were repulsed by what happened, Toad changes his tune, the first in a long line. Now the goalposts are set at the issue of condemnation from relgious and political leaders of Islamic countries:
I have yet to find a comment from a leading Mullah or Islamic Cleric in any Islamic country condemning this action. Where's the speech from the Mosque telling the faithful that this is an unconscionable act? No news of that....... and there probably won't be.
[...]
Where is the condemnation by the government of any Islamic state saying these people are an embarrassment to Muslims everywhere?
And if they did, Toad would be the first to know it, followed by the rest of the world:
I think if any Muslim Cleric or government spoke out against this beheading it'd be front page news on every paper in the world.
But Toad is a patient man - he even said so himself! Thanks, Toad! Good things come to those who wait. 5/13, Tarmac posts the of the condemnation by Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the UAE. But those darn slippery goalposts never quite manage to remain in place. Uh-oh! Islamic governments did condemn the murder! What can he get all indignant about now?
Saudi, UAE and Jordan... yep, the three countries with the best relations with the US.
Still waiting to hear from the religious sector; wonder what they think about chanting "Allah Hu Akbar" while you behead a civilian.
I just wonder if they think Allah would approve.
WWAD?
I point him towards the response of Al-Azhar, the pre-eminent Sunni authority. Sunnis are the majority of all Muslims, and hold majority populations in most countries outside Iraq and Iran. But even that fails to satisfy. Apparently it's Al Jazeera's fault he didn't hear about it. The issue then isn’t so much that Muslims are silent, but that media sources aren’t loud enough:
However, it's a beginning. The Sunni piece is the best reaction to date. Now if Al Jazeera would just make it headline news, right?
Fall back! Retreat!!!
Of course, in the area where the fighting and killing is actually taking place, the place where we need a little leadership and guidance for the masses, there's been what from the leading Ayatollahs and Mullah? Can anyone give me links to condemnations of this act by the religious leaders in Iraq, Iran, Syria or Saudia Arabia?
Oh, you mean like how the highest Sunni authority condemned the murder? The Sunnis, as in the cheeky fellows that live in Falluja?
But Toad, expert on Arab and Muslim thought, knows what the real score is:
And then of course, there is a lot of this sentiment [approving of the murder] floating around. Probably FAR more of this attitude than condemnation.
[...]
And, obviously, this attitude pervades the religious and governmental leadership near the actual fighting.
Well, there you have it folks! It’s obviously true! QED. And all without a single piece of evidence, or non-fallacious argument in support.
And that brings us to this thread. There is no “deafening silence,” except that which follows all the dust Toad has kicked up over this issue.
Case closed.
-
You still fainting over the Al-Azhar and British Muslim council, eh? That does it for you?
Not for me, sorry. For the reasons you outlined. There's been very little condemnation.
Say it ain't so all you like. Doesn't change anything.
And, of course, as Berg followed Pearl, there'll be another one. We'll get to see the same response then, probably.
-
Originally posted by Toad
It wasn't. It wasn't "aimed" at the civilian population in any way.
Right, and if you can drop a nuke on city as long as you "aim" it at a military target.
Clearly the electrical generating was in direct support of military action.
"however, that in no event shall actions against these objects be taken which may be expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water as to cause its starvation or force its movement."
It didn't. You are aware you can also boil water, right? I'll bet there were and still are areas of Iraq where that's been the procedure since time began.
Stupid million Iraqis, they should have just boiled the water. They obviously drank the poisoned water on purpose.
Just US as the direct cause of death please.
"Your Honour, it wasn't my pushing the man off the building the building that killed him, it was the gound he hit that did it."
The Defense Intelligence Agency did an analysis of what the result would be for the Iraqis. You government knew that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would die as a result. They attacked the infrastrure anyway, and sure enough hundreds of thousands of Iraqis died.
-
Sorry, not buying Thrawn. Where's the DIA link?
Military target? Civilians killed? No kidding? So, it's like a war then? Like Hiroshima or something?
"expected to leave the civilian population with such inadequate food or water " Who expected that? Same DIA link?
Ta.