Don't confuse terrorism with Islam, says EU

[andak01]

I can pull an Andak, on you Andak- none of this happens in Muslim countries?

It all happens in Muslim countries as well as throughout the third world. So are we concerned about slavery, women's rights, etc. Or is all this just an excuse for regiem change among Arabs?

First of all we do call them cowards, because they are cowards, slaughtering women and children everyday. Aside from the fact that you are basically ok with genocide as long as you are the weaker party. Good to know that.

While you're telling lies, accuse me of cannibalism too.

50% of the time, minimally. Ever go to the Ummah forums? Ever read an Egyptian paper?

I watch Egyptian TV. You're giving yourself WAY too much credit for being important. Egyptian TV is not MEMRI.

Having people under your heal does, for some, present a preferable scenario... why kill when you can ridicule, dominate and extort? That goes for the majority of Christian and Muslim sovereign history. But only the latter these days are mostly still good for it...

But how long has it really been like that? 200 years? Since the Holocaust? Since the creation of Israel?

Ever hear of economics? individual stupidity? gross assimilation?

Jews have always lived in the least bad place. For many centuries, that least bad place was in the Middle East.

Right and when I mention Jews of Morocco were slaughtered during the War, you'd say it was the French... nice try.

Just as with France, there were collaborators and resistance. There is good evidence that Jews were saved from deportation to the death camps from Morocco and there was also mistreatment of Jews in Morocco at the same time. There were over a quarter million Jews still in Morocco at the end of the war.

The same can be said for Hitler himself. Hitler sided with the anti-Semites of old after all. Jews presented a nice target, traditional scapegoat to focus his peoples attention on. You substantiate his practicality in the defense of your co-religionists. they had the same exact agenda, in Palestine, and their Brothers outside the Levant were quite supportive as well, whether they backed the British or not.

Again, though there was a definite anti-semitic element to what was done, you don't give any weight to the Palestinian desire to throw off the British yoke. They would have hung onto anyone's coattails to do that.

Educate yourself, if indeed you did not try to pull a fast one...

Thanks. I will.

Nationalism, like some religious movements, is by definition exclusionary and acutely aggressive. If a people do not manage their expectations they can not only commit genocide against another people, but quite easily destroy their own societies.

That's worth a second read.

[bararallu]

It all happens in Muslim countries as well as throughout the third world. So are we concerned about slavery, women's rights, etc. Or is all this just an excuse for regiem change among Arabs?

Oh I don't care about "regiem" change... Israelis have not advocated it as a matter of policy. Not that they don't need regime change, given the backward socio-cultural-economic hellholes that they are... but it's not going to solve anything there. You can bring people to water, but you cant make them drink it. And I don't advocate even the effort at this point.

While you're telling lies, accuse me of cannibalism too.

Why wont you clarify your statement then, since my take is the direct consequence of your words.

I watch Egyptian TV. You're giving yourself WAY too much credit for being important. Egyptian TV is not MEMRI.

Really, was it Memri that staged a series based on the protocols of Zion, oh sorry forgot... musta been the Jewish Agency.

But how long has it really been like that? 200 years? Since the Holocaust? Since the creation of Israel?

When did the Arabs ever apologize for dimmitude? for attempting to genocide the Jews 3 times? to extorting and ethnically cleansing populations of Jews that predate them in most of the countries the Arabs claim as theirs.... Germany has not only appologized but pays reparations... It also has a legal system that doesn't daily discriminate based on sex or minority status. When are we going to see an equivalent of a Selafi vatican II? that recognizes Jerusalem as a Jewish city and the Jews as natives to their own lands? eh? the Europeans have done a lot in the interim years, so have the Arabs.... unfortunately.

Jews have always lived in the least bad place. For many centuries, that least bad place was in the Middle East.

No not really. If we talk of numbers there were like 4-5x as many European Jews as Middle Eastern, and were it was best (no anti-Semitism) ... India, there were very few.

Just as with France, there were collaborators and resistance. There is good evidence that Jews were saved from deportation to the death camps from Morocco and there was also mistreatment of Jews in Morocco at the same time. There were over a quarter million Jews still in Morocco at the end of the war.

How many after 1948? 1967? 1973?

Again, though there was a definite anti-semitic element to what was done, you don't give any weight to the Palestinian desire to throw off the British yoke.

We wanted that yoke off as much as them, if not more so, having just suffered a gonocide, but we did not want their [Arab] yoke over us... hence the whole "usurpation". So I do give them weight, the weight of imperialism, and hypocritical colonialism.

They would have hung onto anyone's coattails to do that.

Even the devils...

That's worth a second read.

Are you saying something specifically?

[chaver4u2]

I've never denied that Arabs and Islamists do murder in the name of Allah. What I refuse to admit is that this is typical of all Muslims or that murder in the name of God is unique to Muslims.

Here we go again............
Who in this Forum EVER wrote that "ALL Muslims are murderers"? Why do you keep up this nonsense? What is the purpose? Are you just simply nuts? Or completely ignorant? Why this spin on alleged "generalizations" by other writers in all and every single rebuke of yours? Are you obsessed?

Now if you want me to admit to reality, you'd better start admitting to reality yourself. The reality is that Arab murder and torture is part and parcel to the murder and torture that exists in every society.

WHAT?
You consider the murdering, maiming and torturing by Arabs an essential element of every society? You write that we now have to accept those atrocities as a fact of life, simply because those idiots you quoted earlier (Hitler, Genghis Khan, et. al.) did so as well?
Have you gone absolutely non compos mentis now?

Morocco was one of the very first allies of America against the Barbary Pirates in the 1790s.

Murderers gone weak in the knees.......
Moroccans WERE the Barbary Pirates: they housed them, had them use their harbors and shouks to sell their wares AND SLAVES. But under pressure of the Americans, they relented and turned against the Pirates.
This is a very, very typical MO in Arab history, until this very day: "My enemy's enemy is my friend, until I can sell my friend to my enemy, then my enemy is my friend, until..........and so on."

[scattergood]

My sister is ten years old. Every morning at seven she goes to the bonded labor man, and every night at nine she comes home. He treats her badly; he hits her if he thinks she is working slowly or if she talks to the other children, he yells at her, he comes looking for her if she is sick and cannot go to work. I feel this is very difficult for her.
I don't care about school or playing. I don't care about any of that. All I want is to bring my sister home from the bonded labor man. For 600 rupees I can bring her home-that is our only chance to get her back.
[FONT=Arial][I]We don't have 600 rupees . . . we will never have 600 rupees....
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/0...ket-of-mangos/



Manjula, a first year nursing student, consumed sleeping pills, unable to bear the Velangini?s harassment to convert, protesting students told The Mysore Mail.

....


http://www.christianaggression.org/i...&id=1087077059

Cambodia has banned Christian groups from door-to-door proselytizing and is seeking to limit other religious activities by non-Buddhist organizations, which it says disrupt society.

A directive from the Ministry of Cults and Religions obtained by AFP on Tuesday said: "Christians are prohibited from visiting people's houses by knocking on the door and waiting to say 'the Lord has arrived'."
http://www.christianaggression.org/i...&id=1184988938



CIUDAD JUAREZ, MEXICO – Ask anyone in this gritty industrial border city and they'll tell you their theory of who is killing the women: a mass murderer or copycats, maybe even someone from across the border in El Paso; drug traffickers trying to put the authorities off their own trail; local police, which is why the crimes have yet to be solved; people stealing internal organs for the black market.
Indeed, residents here have had nine uncomfortable years to get carried away by theories as murders of young Mexican women mount – 274 of them to date.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0502/p03s01-ussc.html




Ever heard of China???




If you actually look at what goes on in the third world instead of comparing Muslim nations only to Europe and America, you will find the same disturbing trends. What is the women's rights movement doing in Haiti, in the Amazon basin, in Thailand?

Glad you compare Arab / Muslim countries and cultures to 3rd world and totalitarian dictatorships. Thanks for making my point.

But most of the West sees thesethings as horrible and terrible as well. Which is why HWR and other orgs exist to report and fight for improvements in these countries and areas.

Neither is there a civil war going on in America. When there was a civil war, around 600,000 were killed. And the last time there was a religious war among Christians, it was far more than that and continued for over a century.

And your point is what? Civil war vs. terrorism is relavent why? Nobody mentioned Christiand civil war or even Muslim civil war, or wars that happened hundreds of years ago. What's with the delusional posts?

But you don't have to go very far back to find Christians ethnically cleansing Rwandans after being fired up by a priest.

http://www.afrol.com/articles/22757

You can still find the Bible thumping Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda and the surviving families of the tens of thousands they have killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Resistance_Army

You can visit the graves of the 8000 Muslims killed by Christians in Srebrenica in 1995.

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

You can visit the graves of the Holocaust thanks to the complicity and participation of Lutherans and Catholics.

So just keep telling those lies, that one needs to go back centuries to find any example of Christian intolerance or violence. It's a BIIIIIG lie.

Why is it when a Chrsitian is involved it is Christian terrorism, murder and rape? But when a Muslim is invovled, it is resistance to occupation, fighting colonialism or some other such bs?

I'll thank you in advance for not being able to answer this one.

Those vicious savages. The only good Arab is a... Why don't we put them all in reservations and force their children to grow up as little alcoholic Christians with their own casino?

Put the hooka/hashish/crack pipe down, it is seriously making you paranoid and delusional. I didn't mention killing all Arabs, reservations, force conversions, or making them alcoholic casino owners.

Now if you are playing out some Freudian trip from your childhood, I would encourage you to find professional help.

We look to the people that invented and used the atomic bomb, chemical and biological weapons to teach us all about humanity.

And the nuclear power plant, cure to polio, bubonic plague, innoculations for children's diseases, the MRI, the x-ray, the airplane, string symphonies, Jazz, the Blues, drugs for syphilis, diabetes, tuberculosis, the personal computer, the cell phone, the radio, the television and the list goes on.

What's your point? That you don't like Western morality because they used the nuclear weapon to end a horrible war and basically save more lives? Good to know that you are willing to risk 500K to 1M US soldiers lives during WWII for an invasion (http://home.kc.rr.com/casualties/). Good to know that you have so little regard for the people who fought and sacrificed for the very freedom of religion and expression that you don't want any Muslim country to enjoy and don't feel should be available to American's except yourself.

How many tens of thousands of accidental deaths do there need to be before this difference becomes moot?

When the terrorists and Islamist organizations stop hiding among the population, I'll stop rightly blaming them for the civilian casualties. Please see the Geneva Conventions for a fuller understanding of how 'protected persons' apply to combat areas. It is clearly spelled out there.

Actually no. There isn't any way that terrorists and Islamists can defeat the largest economy and a military that is thousands of times stronger and more sophisticated than they can ever be. They can cause people to die and to live in fear and they can give an excuse for free governments to deprive citizens of their rights.

This is an idiodic and foolish statement. The will of a people to fight can be degraded to the point that they don't fight. That's why so many of the US want out of Iraq, we just don't have the desire or stomach for this fight, the Islamists' ability to deal out indescriminate carnage has proved too much for the vaunted military you extoll.

I see. So, as we saw in Southern Lebanon, there is no such thing as an "innocent" Lebanese. Killing any neighbor of Hezbollah is acceptable. But it's barbarism when they use that same logic against Israel. I agree, it's barbarism.

There is a huge difference between the IDF and Hezbollah. Firstly, the IDF doesn't park it's units and supplies, hide them, and fire from schools, hospitals and apartment buildings. Secondly the IDF sends out warnings via radio, phone, and leaflet for civilians to leave. Third, it TRIES to target the military resources of Hezbollah.

Hezbollah on the other hand, a) hides in civilan areas and stores weapons there on purpose b) fires at civilian targets without aiming or guidance in order to kill civilians, and c) does so without warning.

Lastly, the IDF is a constittuted army, recognized as such by the international community. Hezbollah has multiple coutries and UN resolutions identifying it as a terrorist org and demanding it's disarmament.

That you think the two are equatable would be laughable if it weren't so prevalent and spewed by so many bleating sheep who don't have a clue.

And Reagan and his handling of Saddam and Iran. And Carter and his encouragement of the Mujahhiddeen. Bin Laden once said he had no greater friend than America.

yup, lots of screwups to go around. Should have stood up to the Islamists early and hard before things got to this point.

Thomas Barclay concluded the Treaty of 1786 with Sultan Sidi Mohammad of Morocco.

This treaty, which established the basis for American extraterritorial rights in Morocco was modified and renewed in 1836 and again in 1886 and remained in effect until 1936.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QHD...PRA 1-PA83,M1

In a word, there was a treaty in place from near the founding of America until the Vichy regiem. And we are allys of Morocco to this day. Stop your lying.

Are you really this ignorant? Seems so.

The First Barbary War (1801–1805), also known as the Barbary Coast War or the Tripolitan War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States of America and the North African states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the independent Sultanate of Morocco, and the three Regencies of Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, which were quasi-independent entities nominally belonging to the Ottoman Empire.

So during your so called 'alliance' with Morocco we just happened to fight not one but two wars with them. How does that work exactly?

[andak01]

And your point is what? Civil war vs. terrorism is relavent why? Nobody mentioned Christiand civil war or even Muslim civil war, or wars that happened hundreds of years ago. What's with the delusional posts?

Civil war is relavent because there is a civil war in Iraq, and it's responsible for around 40% of all the terrorist attacks worldwide last year. About 10% of that is Al Qaida in Iraq and the rest is sectarian violence in the Utopian democracy that you say is going to turn itself around any day. No wonder you can't get your head out of your ... You're still waiting for the Iraqis to start handing us flowers again.

[andak01]

Why is it when a Chrsitian is involved it is Christian terrorism, murder and rape? But when a Muslim is invovled, it is resistance to occupation, fighting colonialism or some other such bs?

I'll thank you in advance for not being able to answer this one.

I'm not going to fall for that bait. I am not one, nor have I ever been one to defend Palestinian terrorism. So don't try to twist my words like you always do. I haven't mentioned the O word above, and I'm not going to start now.

Secondly, if I mention that there have been and are Christian terrorists, you must deny it and downplay it, because the uniqueness of Muslim terrorism is the only thing you've got. If it's not unique then what we are seeing is merely a spike in the frequency and severity of something that happens throughout history and will continue to happen. In that case, we can't fight a war against terrorism any more than we can fight a war against murder. We can do a lot to contain it and reduce it, and that may sometimes require military, but we can NEVER win such a conflict any more than we can win a war against hurricanes.

[bararallu]

... not supporting terrorism or [hypothetically] genocide...

B: As I mentioned to you a while back, Arabs don't have to take a page out of Tsun Tsu or Clausewitz to wage their kind of War.. and they've done so continuously since well before even Alexander of Macedon entered the Middle East. Their tradition of the raiding war, or by cultural extension terrorism, is demonstrated everywhere in the Middle East and Africa [and the world over by now].

A: That's actually a sensible strategy when one is in the desert and it's difficult to move large numbers or when one is outnumbered and would lose a conventional fight.

B: You even have the gall to call what Arabs do a "sensible strategy." What if "Jewish warfare" was about biologically killing every Arab in the Middle East, something we can probably cook up in a month or two, would that be a sensible strategy for us to do Andak?

A: It can be a sensible strategy even if I consider them my enemies. We wouldn't call Arabs in a conventional war against the west cowards. They'd just be dead.

B: First of all we do call them cowards, because they are cowards, slaughtering women and children everyday. Aside from the fact that you are basically ok with genocide as long as you are the weaker party. Good to know that.

A: While you're telling lies, accuse me of cannibalism too.

Would you like that long pork char broiled or tatare sir?

[andak01]

... not supporting terrorism or [hypothetically] genocide...

Would you like that long pork char broiled or tatare sir?

You can serve your libel any way it pleases you.

You made a general statement about Arab strategy as a raiding strategy versus a conventional one. I countered that a raiding strategy is sensible in the desert. From that, you get that I support terrorism and genocide? Your "by cultural extension" was a falsehood that didn't even deserve response. ROFL!

If it weren't for a raiding strategy, neither the Revolutionary War or the Civil War would have been won. A raiding strategy is no proof of immorality or evil. And what it most certainly is not "by cultural extension" is terrorism.

Francis Marion (February 26, 1732–February 27, 1795) was a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army and later brigadier general in the South Carolina Militia during the American Revolutionary War. He became known as the "Swamp Fox" for his ability to use decoys and ambushes to disrupt enemy communications, capture supplies, and free prisoners. His use of guerrilla tactics helped set in motion the decline of open battles in the conflict.

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

If you think you can smear me by making it look as though I support terrorism, well; on this forum you're probably right. Some of these morons are more than eager to believe that, no matter what I say. Go high five your idiot friends.

[bararallu]

And you Andak, can serve your strawman to your hearts delight... but everything in that post is clear as daylight: I identified ceaseless and remorseless "Arab style" warfare (along with conventional warfare that Arabs constantly are involved with and you still probably doubt, even though I provided proof), you replied that it was a practical matter... I explicitly stated that this sort of stuff is not only cowardly but given cultural proclivities any sort of warfare can be justified (including terrorism and genocide, which I mention by example)... to my surprise you answer that it would still be acceptable, per the Arabs facing western arms, if an enemy is merely designated. How real politik of you Andak! Well guess what they named their enemy, and the enemy is us.... So I ask you again so that you can think through your position, is it acceptable to commit both terrorism and genocide if you are the "self perceived" weaker party? If you feel I'm engaging in libel, then please clarify your words.

[bararallu]

You can serve your libel any way it pleases you.

You made a general statement about Arab strategy as a raiding strategy versus a conventional one. I countered that a raiding strategy is sensible in the desert. From that, you get that I support terrorism and genocide? Your "by cultural extension" was a falsehood that didn't even deserve response. ROFL!

yes I'm full of falsehoods that dont deserve responses...

Operationally

When performed within the context of Islamic jihad warfare, the ghazw's [Arab style warfare -b] function was to weaken the enemy's defenses in preparation for his eventual conquest and subjugation. Because the typical ghazw raiding party often did not have the size or strength to seize military or territorial objectives, this usually meant sudden attacks on weakly defended targets (e.g. villages) with the intent of terrorizing/demoralizing their inhabitants and destroying material which could support the enemy's military forces. Though rules of war in Islam's rules of warfare offered protection to non-combatants such as women, monastics and peasants (in that, generally speaking, they could not be slain), their property could still be looted or destroyed, and they themselves could be abducted and enslaved (Cambridge History of Islam, p. 269):

The only way of avoiding the onslaughts of the ghāzīs was to become subjects of the Islamic state. Non-Muslims could then enjoy the status of dhimmīs, living under its protection. Most Christian sources confuse these two stages in the Ottoman conquests. The Ottomans, however, were careful to abide by these rules... Faced with the terrifying onslaught of the ghāzīs, the population living outside the confines of the empire, in the 'abode of war', often renounced the ineffective protection of Christian states, and sought refuge in subjection to the Ottoman empire. Peasants in open country in particular lost nothing by this change.
Cambridge History of Islam, p. 285

A good source on the conduct of the traditional ghazw raid are the medieval Islamic jurists, whose discussions as to which conduct is allowed and which is forbidden in the course of warfare reveal some of the practices of this institution. One such source is Averroes' Bidāyat al-Mujtahid wa-Nihāyat al-Muqtasid (translated in Peters, Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam: A Reader, Chapter 4).

[andak01]

And you Andak, can serve your strawman to your hearts delight... but everything in that post is clear as daylight: I identified ceaseless and remorseless "Arab style" warfare (along with conventional warfare that Arabs constantly are involved with and you still probably doubt, even though I provided proof), you replied that it was a practical matter...

What period of time are we speaking of here, and of whom? How do you define Arab? I mean, I suppose if you take a broad enough definition of Arab, you can make a point that some Arab, somewhere is at war all the time. The same could be said of Christians. Likewise, some Arab somewhere is using conventional warfare and some are using guerilla tactics. Some people that use guerilla tactics belong to terrorist groups, some don't. Some terrorist groups occasionally attack military targets.

I explicitly stated that this sort of stuff is not only cowardly but given cultural proclivities any sort of warfare can be justified (including terrorism and genocide, which I mention by example)...

It's only cowardly if you are on the other side of it. If the people making raids and blowing up bridges are on your side and it works, they're heros. That was my point. The method guerilla warfare itself is not inherently moral or immoral, nor does it equate to or lead to terrorism.

I was just recently reading about Darius and the Scythians. He could never get them to come to battle and he chased them around, finally giving up on conquering them. He accused them of cowardess, but ultimately he never subjegated them.

Same thing in the Texas Republic and its battles against the Mexicans. They made an art of retreating until the Mexicans became overconfident.

to my surprise you answer that it would still be acceptable, per the Arabs facing western arms, if an enemy is merely designated. How real politik of you Andak!

Just because I accept the method of warfare doesn't mean I'm on their side. The Nazis used conventional warfare many times, they used brilliant strategies on many occasions. Recognizing the effectiveness of their strategy doesn't mean I've taken up their cause any more than recognizing the effectiveness of the Scythians makes me pro-Scythian. West Point and the Citadel teach whole courses on that sort of thing. Do you believe they are training terrorists simply because they appreciate guerilla tactics?

Well guess what they named their enemy, and the enemy is us.... So I ask you again so that you can think through your position, is it acceptable to commit both terrorism and genocide if you are the "self perceived" weaker party? If you feel I'm engaging in libel, then please clarify your words.

Unlike you, I distinguish between guerilla tactics and terrorism. A terrorist group can engage in guerilla tactics and a conventional army can engage in terrorism. Hezbollah firing at IDF forces within Lebanon is an example of the first and the Haditha incident is an example of the second. Hezbollah's conventional actions does not make them a conventional army, nor does the Haditha incident make the Marines a terrorist group. To their great credit the Marines have made a proper example out of those involved and to their great discredit, Hezbollah has not sworn off attacking innocent people.

I was greatly dismayed that support for Hezbollah grew after the war. Their continued existance is nothing but bad news for moderate Muslims everywhere.

[andak01]

yes I'm full of falsehoods that dont deserve responses...

When performed within the context of Islamic jihad warfare, the ghazw's [Arab style warfare -b] function was to weaken the enemy's defenses in preparation for his eventual conquest and subjugation.

And what is the purpose of any warfare? To strengthen the enemies resolve and their defenses????

Because the typical ghazw raiding party often did not have the size or strength to seize military or territorial objectives, this usually meant sudden attacks on weakly defended targets (e.g. villages) with the intent of terrorizing/demoralizing their inhabitants and destroying material which could support the enemy's military forces.

Who writes this stuff? How many villages did Muhammad attack? There weren't many villages to attack. Most people at that time either lived in cities or were bedoins. Anyway, what was the purpose of the US attacks at Fallujah? What was "Shock and Awe"? Wasn't that aimed at terrorizing/demoralizing? There's a big difference between setting of bombs in a marketplace and having a military objective of terrorizing and demoralizing a populous. If there isn't then the US military is a terrorist group, and I don't believe that for a moment.

Though rules of war in Islam's rules of warfare offered protection to non-combatants such as women, monastics and peasants (in that, generally speaking, they could not be slain),

Specifically, there are ahadiths forbidding the killing of women and children non-combattants.

their property could still be looted or destroyed

, and they themselves could be abducted and enslaved (Cambridge History of Islam, p. 269):

Every single army of that age took war booty. The Muslims at least set rules controlling its dispersal.

The only way of avoiding the onslaughts of the ghāzīs was to become subjects of the Islamic state

.

Or to convert, or to pay tribute. That was under that Caliphate. We don't have a Caliphate now in case you didn't notice.

Non-Muslims could then enjoy the status of dhimmīs, living under its protection. Most Christian sources confuse these two stages in the Ottoman conquests. The Ottomans, however, were careful to abide by these rules...

That's true. So much so, that there are examples of generals forced to withdraw from conquered territory if they didn't follow the rules.

Faced with the terrifying onslaught of the ghāzīs, the population living outside the confines of the empire, in the 'abode of war', often renounced the ineffective protection of Christian states, and sought refuge in subjection to the Ottoman empire. Peasants in open country in particular lost nothing by this change.
Cambridge History of Islam, p. 285

Why would the onslaught of ghazis be more terrifying than, say the Vikings or the Crusaders or any other army?

A good source on the conduct of the traditional ghazw raid are the medieval Islamic jurists, whose discussions as to which conduct is allowed and which is forbidden in the course of warfare reveal some of the practices of this institution.

That's true, the rules of war as opposed to modern day terrorism. Perhaps some of today's jihadis could benefit from such knowledge.

[scattergood]

Civil war is relavent because there is a civil war in Iraq, and it's responsible for around 40% of all the terrorist attacks worldwide last year. About 10% of that is Al Qaida in Iraq and the rest is sectarian violence in the Utopian democracy that you say is going to turn itself around any day. No wonder you can't get your head out of your ... You're still waiting for the Iraqis to start handing us flowers again.

Well, since you have no leg to stand on with your facts, of course you basically make them up. You define a civil war how? You know that 10% of all terrorist acts in Iraq are al-qaida how? And there are no other foreign terrorist organziations there?

Regardless of what you want to post, nearly all violence in Iraq is terrorist violence or responses to terrorist violence. There aren't standing armies duking it out tank to tank. Does it really matter to anybody if it is disaffected Sunni's of Iraqi origin slaughtering Shias, or if it is Irianian trained Shia's slaughtering Sunni's, or if it is Saudi's coming over the border to slaugher Shia's? The fact is that terrorism as a tool of war is somehow strangely acceptable to them and to you. It isn't the fault of the people blowing themselves up or slitting each other's throats to them or to you, it is the fault of somebody who's hand isn't on the knife or the detonation device, or whose foot isn't on the gas pedal of the chlorine laced truck bomb. Most rational, moral, sane people blame the person committing the heinous act, but with you don't, why is that exactly?

I'm not going to fall for that bait. I am not one, nor have I ever been one to defend Palestinian terrorism. So don't try to twist my words like you always do. I haven't mentioned the O word above, and I'm not going to start now.

Secondly, if I mention that there have been and are Christian terrorists, you must deny it and downplay it, because the uniqueness of Muslim terrorism is the only thing you've got. If it's not unique then what we are seeing is merely a spike in the frequency and severity of something that happens throughout history and will continue to happen. In that case, we can't fight a war against terrorism any more than we can fight a war against murder. We can do a lot to contain it and reduce it, and that may sometimes require military, but we can NEVER win such a conflict any more than we can win a war against hurricanes.

You mean the bait of logic and reason? Thanks for explaining that you want to steer clear of straight up questions that require you to think logically.

That you deny your own words, is of course par for the course, the quote below can be found at http://israelforum.com/board/showthr...12340&page=44:

Why would the situation not be comparable? It is plainly comparable and similar, a weaked representative government, bereft of material support has to combat committed religious zealots who will kill at the drop of the hat, have stated they will do so, and have done so for years. And exactly why do you think that things will be all rosy if the USA leaves right now?

They won't be rosy, they'll be horrible. And it'll be horrible if we leave in a year or in a decade or in two decades. The difference is how many trillion US dollars and how many thousand American lives we'll spend before experiencing that horror. We could still be in Vietnam today too if your kind of thinking had prevailed.

Good to know you have no regard for your Muslim bretheren as they may be led off to the slaughter. Also, good to know that you have no faith that they can actually improve their lives if given the opportunity. Wait, weren't you the one berating everybody for thinking that Muslims are only prone to violence? Here you clearly express the view that Muslims are only prone to violence and there is no hope of avoiding the 'horror' as you put it of reeductation camps, the murder of hundreds of thousands, and a few regional wars. How is it you don't berate your self over this line of thinking?

So give them the opportunity! Stop occupying their country.

So which is it? Do you believe that no matter how long the USA stays, the end result will be 'horrible' and that the Muslims in Iraq are forever destined to a cycle of violence, something that you have berated others for when you think you see that point in their arguments. Or is it that the USA is keeping the natural peacefulness of the Muslims in Iraq from blossoming into a wonderful representative government, and the 'occupation' is the only thing stopping that from happening?

That you can't see the totall illogic and stupidity in your own points is just par for the course. Of course, the fault that you make it obvious to others by posting this dribble is plainly on your head.

You have ceaslessly blamed the violence in Iraq on the invasion, the removal of Saddam, the removal of Baathist forces, the presences of 'occupying' forces, blah, blah, blah. But when faced with the fact that you actually said these things, you just deny, deny, deny. Typical.

-------
Questions not answered by Andak from previous post:

What's your point? --in reference to learning about humanity from the people who invented the nuclear power plant, cure to polio, bubonic plague, innoculations for children's diseases, the MRI, the x-ray, the airplane, string symphonies, Jazz, the Blues, drugs for syphilis, diabetes, tuberculosis, the personal computer, the cell phone, the radio, the television...no answer.

Are you really this ignorant? and How does that work exactly?
--in reference to irrefutable proof that during the so call Morrocan peace agreements, the USA fought not 1 but 2 separate wars.

[andak01]

Well, since you have no leg to stand on with your facts, of course you basically make them up. You define a civil war how? You know that 10% of all terrorist acts in Iraq are al-qaida how? And there are no other foreign terrorist organziations there?

Do you deny that the majority of Iraqi violence is sectarian and not foreign? Well of course you do.

Regardless of what you want to post, nearly all violence in Iraq is terrorist violence or responses to terrorist violence.

Are you calling George Bush a liar?

A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .


The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. . . .

The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda.

NPR says 10%
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12173643

ABC says 15%
One of these militant groups calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. ABC News recently reported that a U.S. military intelligence report found that the group is not a chief organizer of the bloody attacks in Iraq, and is responsible for no more than 15 percent of the violence there.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...heck_iraq.html

Numerous estimates show that the group called Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its foreign fighters comprise only 5 to 10 percent of the Sunni insurgents' forces. Most Sunni insurgents are simply what Wayne White -- who led the State Department's intelligence effort on Iraq until 2005 -- calls POIs, or "pissed-off Iraqis," who are fighting because "they don't like the occupation."
http://terrorism.about.com/od/groups...aedainIraq.htm

Does it really matter to anybody if it is disaffected Sunni's of Iraqi origin slaughtering Shias, or if it is Irianian trained Shia's slaughtering Sunni's, or if it is Saudi's coming over the border to slaugher Shia's?

For the United States to commit more than half a trillion dollars and upwards of 4000 American lives to a conflict? Does it matter whether it's an internal or external or whether the violence is primarily aimed at America or not??? You bet it does!

[scattergood]

Do you deny that the majority of Iraqi violence is sectarian and not foreign? Well of course you do.

I have said or denied anything with regard to foreign vs. domestic fighters involved in terrorism in Iraq. You are hung up on that cannard like its the end all be all of the discussion. Heck you brought it up, I merely asked you for sources.

Are you calling George Bush a liar?

A clear strategy begins with a clear understanding of the enemy we face. The enemy in Iraq is a combination of rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists. The rejectionists are by far the largest group. These are ordinary Iraqis, mostly Sunni Arabs, who miss the privileged status they had under the regime of Saddam Hussein -- and they reject an Iraq in which they are no longer the dominant group. . . .

Nobody mentioned Bush buy you. You seem to have a complex about him. As I said above, I never brought up the issue of foreign fighters, I just asked for an explanation from you about them and 'civil war'.

The second group that makes up the enemy in Iraq is smaller, but more determined. It contains former regime loyalists who held positions of power under Saddam Hussein -- people who still harbor dreams of returning to power. These hard-core Saddamists are trying to foment anti-democratic sentiment amongst the larger Sunni community. . . .

The third group is the smallest, but the most lethal: the terrorists affiliated with or inspired by al Qaeda.

NPR says 10%
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...oryId=12173643

ABC says 15%
One of these militant groups calls itself Al Qaeda in Iraq. ABC News recently reported that a U.S. military intelligence report found that the group is not a chief organizer of the bloody attacks in Iraq, and is responsible for no more than 15 percent of the violence there.

http://www.americanprogress.org/issu...heck_iraq.html

Numerous estimates show that the group called Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) and its foreign fighters comprise only 5 to 10 percent of the Sunni insurgents' forces. Most Sunni insurgents are simply what Wayne White -- who led the State Department's intelligence effort on Iraq until 2005 -- calls POIs, or "pissed-off Iraqis," who are fighting because "they don't like the occupation."
http://terrorism.about.com/od/groups...aedainIraq.htm

That you for actually providing some sources. Although they are horribly cited by you since it is unclear which quote goes to which source. Further, citing a recorded program and then saying it's in there is pretty pathetic. Please quote and cite, although I guess I shouldn't complain since after nearly 50 pages this is maybe your 5th or 6th time of actually providing any evidence, as badly as you did.

For the United States to commit more than half a trillion dollars and upwards of 4000 American lives to a conflict? Does it matter whether it's an internal or external or whether the violence is primarily aimed at America or not??? You bet it does!

So for your if it is Iraqi Shiite's getting guns and supplies from Shiites in Iran going and slaughtering Iraqi Sunnis that's ok? And if it is Iraqi Sunni's getting guns and supplies from Sunni Saudi Arabia to slaughter Iraqi Shiites, that's ok too? That's a 'sectarian' conflict and thus according to you one that everybody should stay out of.

But if it is a Saudi citizen or a Iranian citizen going to slaughter Iraqi's that's 'foreign' intervention and thus people should go and help the Iraqi governemnt? Is that your position?

Explain to me how not helping the Iraqi governemnt and Iraqi people (who can ask the US to leave at any time through their elected officials but haven't) makes sense in one case but not the other. How does that work exactly?

How about other conflicts like Darfur, Somalia, and heck for that matter Rawanda (which you brought up previously)? By your logic, they were and are 'sectarian' conflicts and nobody should be there to help anybody out. Is that how you feel about the Muslim on Muslim conflicts in Lebanon?


-------
Questions not answered by Andak from previous post

Most rational, moral, sane people blame the person committing the heinous act, but with you don't, why is that exactly? -- Still blaming everybody but the trigger puller.