Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Jammer on September 15, 2001, 12:57:00 PM
-
Let me begin with paying my respect and condoleances for all victims in the late events. Let me also declare that I'm firmly against terrorist activities of any kind. If there was anything I could do to make what occured not happen, I would do it.
This said, I think it would be interesting to discuss what I, we, you percive as the real reasons behind this tradition of conflict between the western countries and the muslim world. Sure we can track the conflict all the way back to the crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries, but let's stick to the last 50 years, the aftermath of WWII.
-1947 Israel was founded in a unique way, more or less unheard of in history. A new state appeared over night, a paper product that later have cost many lives to uphold. This is a 'dead horse' in the conflict. It has been beaten over and over, and still it's being beaten over. Israel is supported by mainly the US, but also by other western powers.
-A large part of the worlds oil reserves is located in the middle east, traditional muslim counties. The west has retained a strong presence in the region for the control of this 'black gold'. Historically it has been the British who were the strong power in the area, but since WWII this role has been taken over by the US.
-Another point is; who were the original agressors? No western country (to my knowledge) has been occupied by 'muslim military' for the last 100 years. What is the influence that makes the Muslim feel their way of life is threatened? Are they making it all up?
Ok I hope we can have discussion here, above gutter level. And again note that none of this argumentation is intended as an 'excuse' for terrorism - its always inexcuseable, but rather an attempt to see beneath the suface of the conflict.
Any thoughts?
-
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2001/010913_mfe_binladen_1.html (http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2001/010913_mfe_binladen_1.html)
-
Interesting article, but it does not cover any of the historical background of the conflict, other than bin Ladens religous nonsense rambling.
What is your comment on the Israel matter? The Iraqi matter? Syria?
Does the conflict have any substantial ground?
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2001/010913_mfe_binladen_1.html (http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2001/010913_mfe_binladen_1.html)
Yep, reaffirms the fact that he is a nutcase...to bad the reporter didn't take care of him when he could.
failed to mention that it was the military weapons the US gave/sold to his band of "holy warriors" which finally defeated the Russians along with the fact that Russia was crumbling at the same time from the inside out - a direct result of American involvement. I just hope when they do kill his sorry ass, there is positive proof he is dead! Not some burnt head the Taliban shows as proof he is gone...
Jammer
At this point I do not care WHY they did it, I just want them to pay for it!
-
Eagler I can understand your point.
But at some point we got to ask ourselves why, or we are likely to face more tragedies like this one.
-
Whatever led up to this act of war is said and done. Whether one believes that the American people are responsible for this attack or Bin Laden -the fact remains that four American commercial airliners were hijacked by Egyption and Saudi Arabian terrorists and targeted with horrific results into the heart of the American way of life.
One fact that is now undeniable is that every single American is now a potentiol target of death and destruction at the hands of these militant and fanatical Islamic terrorists.
PS
I am disgusted and angry with Americans who are openly sympathetic with these terrorists and their cause by calling them brave and their actions heroic.
Y
-
Try to see my question.
Why are we (the west) targets of this anger?
-
In my opinion...the way they treat their women is reason enough to bomb the scum!
-
...and so end the hope of a meaningful discussion on theese boards.
In 1948, the State Department's senior imperial planner, George Kennan, wrote: "We have 50 per cent of the world's wealth, but only 6.3 per cent of its population. In this situation, our real job in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which permit us to maintain this position of disparity. To do so, we have to dispense with all sentimentality . . . we should cease thinking about human rights, the raising of living standards and democratisation."
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
-
I think "we" are a target for these guys because they are religious fanatics. They really believe that it is their duty to spread Islam all around the world, and we are holding them up. For instance, they hate us because we support Isreal. They hate us because we are mostly interested in the Middle East because of the oil there. They think they are superior to us, and since we don't acknowledge it, they hate us.
I don't think all muslims feel that way- it is just to bad that the ones that DO feel that way give the rest a very bad reputation. I'm rather more concerned with how we are going to deal with Afghanistan over this. I'm pretty sure it was Osama bin Laden that was behind the attack, and if Afghanistan doesn't turn him over what can we do about it? Bombing the country would be pretty much useless, as would an economic embargo. That pretty much leaves the only other meaningful option as sending in ground troops to occupy the country while we search for bin Laden, and that pretty much means a second Vietnam war for us.
Don't get me wrong- if the U.S.A send troops over there, I'll enlist in the Army and request orders to go over there, I just don't think it would be in the best interests of the country to do it.
-
Jammer, please explain in plain English what the point of your posts are. It isn't clear what you are driving at in these posts. Please grace us with your opinion.
-
Jammer read the interview, all of it.
A digest:
They believe we have forced our culture, freedoms, spiritual beliefs, and business practices upon them and it is destroying Islam. They believe that it is worth killing and dying to stop this from happening. So they are trying to destroy the US or at least kill so many US citizens that we discontinue our relationships.
-
I think Jammer raises some interesting issues and I also believe that military action will not stop future attacks of even greater magnitude. They are short-term fixes. We have to look at the past to see the origins of the conflict in order to understand how to proceed.
-
We haven't been seeing a lot of news from Israel what with all the talk about wither Gary Condit did or didn't... No need to show Israeli F16 Falcons blasting the crap outta a residential apartment building. Or American built Apache gunships emptying an entire rocket clip into a refuge camp. Or water trucks being denied access to settlements that the only way to get water is to have it trucked in. Or an apartide system 10x worse than S. Africa...
We support all this. We support to the tune of 10 billon a year. The biggest welfare client of all.
Had the liberal media spent a little more time showing these images, had discussed our relatiship with Israel and our role in the middle east... Had pushed Israel a little harder to kick-start the peace talks. Perhaps we wouldn't be made the target. Possibly, our ivory towers would still be standing.
This idea of bombing the crap outta Afhaganistan or invading the country is ridiculous. Sure we might kill ladan, but somebody will take his place. Its not until we confront the reason for their radicalism and start treating people like humans instead of 3/4 human.
Also its time for the media to get back to work. They get easy paychecks doing nothing but talking about GaryConditGaryConditGaryCondi t. Did the president touch Monica's left breast or her right breast first?
A little off topic but I noticed when Ari Flishner (sp?) the president's spokesmen talked about the trashing of air force one; his eyebrows shot straight up. A few months later we find out he was lying. Now the other day when he was talking about creditable evidence that AF1 was a target, his eyebrows again... shot straight up to the top of his forehead. Whets the point of lying about that?
10B
-
Urchin: Good post. Interesting views.
1776: The point of my posts? The only point is to have a discussion about what people percive as the reasons behind the conflict. Also I want to see what people think about the merit that theese reasons hold.
funkedup: I skimmed the artice, the first part was basically a story about how the interviewer got to meet bin Laden, right? The interview itself only mirrors the rethorics of fanatic. I'm not interested in propaganda from either side. I'm interested in independnant, free minded discussion.
How can this conflict be solved?
I think we can agree that two wrongs don't make one right. Still capturing and prosecuting the guilty is of outmost importance.
I refer to this article for reference:
Far from being the terrorists of the world, the Islamic peoples have been its victims : John Pilger :13 Sep 2001 (http://pilger.carlton.com/print/77937)
-
Jammer: I skimmed the article you linked. Ravings of a fanatic...
-
funkedup: LOL. Point taken. However, I agree that bin Laden is deranged fanatic because of his psychotic willingness to sacrifice human lives, but you dismiss Pilger as a Fanatic on what grounds? Which part of his reasoning is false?
-
Jammer, at this point in time it doesn't matter why things are the way they are. It only matters how things are going to be.
-
You are right that there is clearly a distinction and I don't mean to put Pilger in the same class as bin Laden. My main beef is with Pilger's comments about Iraq. Iraqis are dying because they are ruled by a psychotic butcher. Also he seems to forget who created the conflict in Afghanistan, and the fact that the territorial claims of Palestine are not so strong when you take a close look at them.
If the US really only cared about the bottom line (oil and profits), really hated Arabs, and really wanted to destroy Islam, it would go something like this:
1. Kill everybody from Casablanca to Kabul. Enlist every able bodied man in the US, and just march across, leaving nothing behind but ashes. Death camps, scorched earth policy, etc.
2. Take the best oil areas and call them "East Texas". Populate them with industrial colonies and reap the profits.
3. Give about 25% of the oil fields to Russia so they will back us, and give about 10% to Israel for good measure. If NATO cooperates they get some too. If not, first strike, game over.
The day that stuff happens, I'll jump on the "US is the biggest terrorist" bandwagon. Until then I say we do more good than harm.
-
I don't want to be harsh, but the Iraqis are now dying because of international sanctions.
Squeezed to death (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html)
A PAPER PRESENTED TO THE INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION ON 29 FEBRUARY 2000 BY SHUNA LENNON LLB (http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/sanctions.htm)
Annan Unhappy with Attack (http://www.oneworld.org/ips2/Dec98/01_30_006.html)
UNICEF: Iraq surveys show 'humanitarian emergency' (http://www.unicef.org/newsline/99pr29.htm)
Guardian: 'It is an outrage that you repeat fabricated disinformation' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,417598,00.html)
Locked in an Orwellian eternal war (http://www.zmag.org/CrisesCurEvts/Iraq/fiskiraq.htm)
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
-
Jammer,
Iraqi's CLAIM they are dying because of their leadership and support for him. He makes Stalin look like a kindly old man.
Food, medicines and other humanitarian aid has been getting to the country as well as allowing them to sell sufficient oil, legally, to buy basic subsistance goods for the nation.
If they really are dying they need to look inward for the problem.
Mav
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Maverick ]
-
Maverick: Could you post some reference to your statements?
Another interesting read:
Howard Zinn: IRAQ BOMBING "ANOTHER LIE" (http://www.zmag.org/crisescurevts/iraq/zinniraq.htm)
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
-
Originally posted by Jammer:
I don't want to be harsh, but the Iraqis are now dying because of international sanctions.
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
As a result of their own actions against Kuwait. They haven't seen anything yet if it is proven they are behind this attack, which I feel at some level they are..
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
As a result of their own actions against Kuwait. They haven't seen anything yet if it is proven they are behind this attack, which I feel at some level they are..
But what is the difference between 500,000 Iraqi children and 20,000 americans? What makes one right and the other wrong? Are those children more guilty than the victims in the terrorist attack?
I think we are being blinded by numbers and simplistic truths. The number 500,000 doesn't mean anything to us anymore. We want to think that 'it's their own fault' because the option is too painful.
Frankly I cannot belive that there are still people defending the sanctions and continuos bombings of Iraq. Saddam Hussein might be a criminal and dictator, but this doesn't allow for the violation of international law.
Washington Post: Twisted Policy on Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-01/26/125l-012699-idx.html)
It will only achieve even greater hatred against the west, and soon the path to agreement and unity between west and middle-east will be closed for the forseeable future.
Noam Chomsky (Institute Professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology):
"I agree that Saddam Hussein is a great danger to everyone within his reach, just as he was in the 1980s, when his worst crimes were committed. It is, however, elementary logic that that cannot be the reason why the U.S. and Britain are opposing him. His war crimes were committed with the strong support of the United States and Britain, even after the invasion of Kuwait. Furthermore, the United States turned immediately to direct support for Saddam Hussein in March 1991, when he suppressed an uprising in the South that might have overthrown his rule.
As for his weapons of mass destruction, although that threat is also real, Iraq is by no means the only country with such weapons. You do not have to go very far from Iraq in either direction to find other examples of such countries, and the major powers are, of course, the worst threat in this respect. But even if we simply focus on Iraq, the bombing cannot have anything to do with limiting weapons of mass destruction, because the fact is that the bombing will very likely enhance those programmes. The only restriction that has existed - and it has been an effective restriction - is the regular inspection. The nuclear weapons programme has apparently been reduced to nothing or very little because of the inspections. UNSCOM inspectors have undoubtedly been impeded, but have nevertheless severely limited Iraq's weapons development capacity and have destroyed plenty of weapons. It is generally assumed, by the U.S. as well, that UNSCOM's efforts will either be terminated or marginalised very much as a result of the bombing. So that cannot be the reason for the bombing.
Although I agree that Saddam Hussein remains a serious threat to peace, there happens to be a way to deal with that question, one that has been established under international law. That procedure is the foundation of international law and international order and is also the supreme law of the land in the United States. If a country, say the United States, feels that a threat is posed to peace, it is to approach the Security Council, which has the sole authority to react to that threat. The Security Council is required to pursue all peaceful means to deal with the threat to peace, and if it determines that all such means have failed, it may then specifically authorise the use of force. Nothing else is permitted under international law, except with regard to the question, here irrelevant, of self-defence."
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
-
Osama bin Laden's group is a based on a fringe sect of the Sunni branch of Islam. This fringe group belives in the kinds of things that leads to suicide bombings and other terrorist acts. The vast majority of Sunnis do not agree with this stance, just like the vast majority of Christians do not agree with shooting abortion providers.
Interestingly Laden's group does not have any Shi'ite members. They view Shi'ites as enemies as well.
The goal of this fringe Sunni faction is to restore the caliphate to its glory days, using Afganistan as a model. The fact that they are using Afganistan as a model shows that they do not understand their own history. The glory days of Islam were tolerant of Jews and Christians and treated women with respect and dignity.
-
Jammer
Don't be quoting Noam Chomsky to these rednecks... Pleeeese find somebody else..
-grin-
-
Originally posted by Jammer:
But what is the difference between 500,000 Iraqi children and 20,000 americans? [ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
20,000 Americans!
I can't believe you are comparing America's capitalism with Sadam's muderous invasion of Kuwait! Amazing you have the balls to side with the terrorist or the country who probably sponsored them for this horrific attack on this board...
-
Sorry, but I have repeatedly stated that I DO NOT side with any terrorists, au contraire, I strongly object, and call for justice being served by punishing the guilty.
Is that clear?
I brought up the comparison (perhaps unwisely, and I apologize) to bring in perspective what we are talking about.
People are dying in Iraq because of sanctions (this has been confimred by many parties, like UNICEF and the Cheif of UN Humanitary control, see my links above), still some people suggest that its deserved, or that one have to accept 'collateral damage'. This is baroque and absurd. Suggesting this is reverse logic.
The terrorist act on the 11th is inexcuseable and a tragedy of epic proportions, but unless we aknowledge our own atrocities and adress them, this conflict is going to prevail. That is my fear.
And on a further notice, I do not side with Sadam Hussein either, but I DO side with the innocent civilians that suffer and die under the sanctions put upon them. And so would anyone (I would imagine) who had the ability to read and comprehend the information that is available.
And please, bringing up Sadams 'murderous invasion of Kuwait' is ridiculos, as he was the favorite pet of the West during the long and brutal war against Iran. Don't tell me you cannot see through that obvious double standard?
[ 09-15-2001: Message edited by: Jammer ]
-
Originally posted by Jammer:
People are dying in Iraq because of sanctions (this has been confimred by many parties, like UNICEF and the Cheif of UN Humanitary control, see my links above), still some people suggest that its deserved, or that one have to accept 'collateral damage'. This is baroque and absurd. Suggesting this is reverse logic.
The terrorist act on the 9th is inexcuseable and a tragedy of epic proportions, but unless we aknowledge our own atrocities and adress them, this conflict is going to prevail. That is my fear.
If they are dying, it is because Sadam is letting them die. Instead of providing for his people, he buys anti-aircraft weapon systems from China.... Maybe the ppl of Iraq have had enough and will do something about it if/when the US does end up attacking the Iraq gov/military as a result of the terrorist attack instead of jumping up and down in front of tv cameras screaming "Death to America".
The attack was on the 11th...
-
Originally posted by Eagler:
[QB]
If they are dying, it is because Sadam is letting them die. Instead of providing for his people, he buys anti-aircraft weapon systems from China.... Maybe the ppl of Iraq have had enough and will do something about it if/when the US does end up attacking the Iraq gov/military as a result of the terrorist attack instead of jumping up and down in front of tv cameras screaming "Death to America".
[QB]
With all due respect, that is totally wrong. If you would even bother to read the information available you would see this. I've yet to be presented a reasonable excuse for upholding the sanctions and continuing the bombings.
I'm sorry but the hypocricy is appalling to me.
-
Why haven't one of you regular posters gotten around to telling Jammer, Dowding, and 10bears to take a flyin' leap yet?
Do i have to do EVERYTHING???
-
If you will look at US activity in midle east from ME peoples point of view... may be you will discover few new facts.
But who cares about people without huge citys, whitch live in old world.... they product nothink interesting for us , so they are no important ..... but they live in that country mates, and its their country.
Who speaking about conflict with muslims, or people whitch live with Islam, is absolutly ignorant... check IRA .. i think those guys are Catholics. Did any talking about attacking Irish ?
You target is only few psychotics, not country. And before you will attack them, try to have a look on normal people`s point of view in that country.
Think carefully if you will make enemy from Afghans people, before your steps will product more psychotics.
[ 09-16-2001: Message edited by: EagleC ]
-
Yep EagleC
It's just like when I treat my home for ants, roaches and other insects. I just don't treat it once, I treat it monthly or everytime I happen to see one whichever comes first..
These terrorists are the roaches of the world which need to be exterminated. What would you rather us do, nothing?
-
The Iraqi, Iranian and Afghan people are not the enemy, per se. The rouge governments of those nations are.
The governments of China, France, Russia and others that sell them the arms are also by their acts accomplices...
Wake up and smell the coffee America. Shut down and seize the assest of any nation that would arm the governments of our attackers.
-
Cabby44, when someone wants to make a fool of themselves you are obligated to step aside :)
-
Bingo, Oz.
-
The Iraqi, Iranian and Afghan people are not the enemy, per se. The rouge governments of those nations are.
The governments of China, France, Russia and others that sell them the arms are also by their acts accomplices...
Wake up and smell the coffee America. Shut down and seize the assest of any nation that would arm the governments of our attackers.
Umm Hangtime - you might as well start with your own government, they're closest, and have armed all of the above mentioned countries. Ooops. ;)
-
Originally posted by Urchin:
I think "we" are a target for these guys because they are religious fanatics. They really believe that it is their duty to spread Islam all around the world, and we are holding them up. For instance, they hate us because we support Isreal. They hate us because we are mostly interested in the Middle East because of the oil there. They think they are superior to us, and since we don't acknowledge it, they hate us.
[sarcasm]
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah, there's your reason right there! Simple as all that! [/sarcasm]
:rolleyes: