Well thats nice. Lets pick up a gun and force freedom down people's throats ...

kind of a contradiction there really. No better than anyone else in my opinion then.

It's not about "birds of a feather"; after all, the one communist country that wasn't a Soviet sattelite state, China, was in the state of near-permanent conflict with the USSR. It's about democratic governments being responsible to the people, and to the people alone. Such a concept does not exist in totalitarian regimes.

With Saddam (and his sons later on) in power there was also a threat of a future war. I have no problem with your opinion about the reasoning, but in the end, what's done is done. If we waited for the UN to step in, Iraq would not have the elections two days ago.


I am not against coalitions and alliances. I am against coalitions for coalitions' sake. If possible, military actions should be done with international support. If not - then they'd have to be done unilaterally. UN only serves to restrict the possible actions.

See, you're still thinking of the international community as some sort of messiah who is always right. You accept the notion that the U.S. can have ulterior motives when starting a war as a fact, but are having a hard time realizing that other countries have ulterior motives as well.

To put it to you frankly: there is no way in hell the UN would have approved of a military action in Iraq with France and Russia on the security council. Not if Gore was president, not if even FDR was at the helm. It's easy to say that Bush blew it, but that would not change the reality of the French and Russian interests in Iraq. You can pretend all you want that Bush became unpopular only after him concetrating on Iraq, but the reality is that the Michael Moore types in this country were polarizing the nation right after 9/11. You talk about a police state? Which police state are you talking about? Is it Iraq? Is it Iran? Is it Saudi Arabia? Is it Cuba? Is it China?

Oh, I forget, it's the good ol' U.S. we're talking about. The dreaded Patriot act, which nobody ever cares to read. Did you knwo that if the FBI had the powers they have now, right before 9/11, they would've obtained a warrant to search the 20th hijacker's computer with a couple of days, rather than having to wait 2 weeks, and the whole thing would've never happened? But no, that would make the U.S. a police state.

But what's the need for politicizing this anyway? What good does making this a race issue do? Is this so that you can once again condemn the rich white man (preferably a Republican), instead of confronting the real evil of the modern world - militant Islamism?

Whatever makes you sleep better.

Did anybody force 72% of Iraqis to go to the polls on Sunday?

Think about it.

I really do hate that word ... Militant Islamism ...

Changing the name won't solve the problem, unfortunately.

Neither will militant patriotism. or that's how a growing list of countries are looking at it. if we wanted to bring democracy to volatile muslim spaces, we would have helped rebuild all ten tsunami countries and dedicated all our funds to restructuring them, their needs, and their government. that would have done just as much, and people would have loved us.



except for 1. We didn;t eneter there saying it was because we wanted to set up an election we liked. That's not valid grounds for bombing a country. and 2. It might not have happened two days ago, you're. Right it might have happened ten years from now under different circumstances that were not nearly as contested and probably wouldn't trigger as much back-lash violence. Its too early to say how this election will hold, if there will be a collapse or coupe, if there is enough infrastructure to even support this, and what lots of other unanticipated events. Give it one month, we're nowhere near the clear. I still don't think what's done is done works to anyone's benefit either. Its a dumb arguement that doesn't force nations to deal with their past and ammend their futures. That ties in nicely to the original discussions around Sudan. Is it really worth it to ignore past misdeeds, or write them off as not having occured? That's not a good idea in my book. Communal memory is the number one most influencial hand in communal future and formation. so i don't buy your what's done is done, lets just sweep this one under the rug and say yeah, well there was an election...doesn't matter that the way we forced it on them was completley false, illegal, and pissed off the whole world that is now not going to help us in the future.



Why is that. don''t you network at work anticipating needs of the future. I don't know about you but when I sent off my bosses Xmas cards last year I was pretty damn sure he didn't know personally, or perhaps had even met all 2000 of them. Its in anticipation of the future. sort-of like pre-emption, but with out the massice bombing and slaughtering.

Now if we're going to argue how effective it been, then yes, I agree that it hasn't been effective at all, and that those problems need to be streamlined and addressed.



You're right, there wouldn't have been military intervention in iraq. Great idea. That's how it goes Krem, thats compromise. If other countries have a different investment there, you can also work with that. Look who went to Iran and tried for disarmament talks and who said F off we'll blow you up anyways cause we don't believe you. With that kind of style, I'm pretty sure no one will disarm, because that will just leave them defenseless when we go in anyways. Yes i believe in international codes, and we can break them if we want, but then we need to expect to get bit in the butt just like anyone else. And this has nothing to do with the white republican man, there are plenty of those that don't like what's going on either so stop putting words into my mouth. Militant Islam might be a problem, but ever heard of "If the disease doesn't kill you, the remedy will." I don't think fighting fire with fire will work this time is all. On the other hand, do I think we should have intervened sometime in the last 20 years in sudan, yes. Its a case by case basis, and trial and error. What shock me most is that we tried, had errors, and didn't think to take that information and re-evaluate the situation and plan. Hey, when I learned the alphabet and started reading books, my pint of view changed with every new bit of information, I don't see that here and that's both wrong and right. Its wrong because we're digging our own grave, its right because we do have a self-produced responsibility to the area now.

If you replace one militant form with another, I don't know about you, but i won't be sleeping much better. I understand the need to involvement in certain spaces, I just disagree with the battles we've chosen to fight and how we've chosen to go about doing it. While we worry about Bin laden, the list of countries that's worried about us continues to grow too, and we're not exactly setting an example that puts them to any comfort, so they're going to do what we are now. Build tons of weapons and talk about pre-emption. Knowing how to use a gun and using it responsibly are two very different things.

dont think thats true ....
changing the word nigger made a big difference to the lives of a huge community

I do .. and you know full well how i feel about those elections.

Well said, bABA and it is absolutely true. Sometimes words can be more hurtful than physical pain.

Oh please, get a grip. Those governments do not want the West there; they don't even want to accept the aid, while their people are suffering. Militant patriotism is something that you call the Bush administration's attempts at the war on terrorism. Militant Islamism is responsible for killing millions of people and subjectivng to poverty millions more.

1. Actually, bringing democracy to Iraq was one of the reasons cited before the war. It was not one of the emphasized reasons, though. The blame there lies both with the Bush administration and the mass media.

2. It would not have happened without outside pressure, end of story. You're using the same logic Bush Sr. used after 1991. And what happened? That's right - Saddam was in power until he was removed.


There is quite a bit of difference between you sending a Christmas card to your boss, as a common courtesy, and giving up decisions about going to war with someone to a body that you do not have control over. The former is good for you, the latter is ultimately bad for the country.



You only agree to the compromise if you benefit from it. The U.S., according to the Bush administration anyway, did not benefit from a compromise with France and Russia that would've kep Saddam in power, plain and simple.

What good do talks and UN resolutions do, when the other side feels like it's not gonna be punished if it doesn't hold up to its end of the deal? Saddam felt invinvcible after 1991. Sure he lost the war, but he was not run out of town. Sure, there were resolutions telling him not to develop WMD's anymore, but why would he follow them, if there is no repercussions.

Same with Iran. Talk all you want with them, but should they comply with anything? You think the U.S. military presence to the East and to the West of their borders might have anything to do with it?

Now, militan Islamists might be a problem? Are we living in the same universe? Are islamists not calling on jihad? Are they not attacking free people all across the world? If that might be a problem, then I dare not imagine what you consider actual problems.



I don't care about the countries that worry about us. They can worry all they want, that doesn't mean we're going to attack them. What worries me, though, is 300 people who had to die in a grade school; 200 people who had to die in trains; 3000 people who had to die at work; 100 people who had to die in a theater, etc., all in the name of the Holy Jihad.

huh?

What are you talking about? You think calling someone African-American instead of 'nigger' solves the poverty problems black people in America face?

You didn't answer my question. Did anybody force those Iraqis to go to the polls?

Krem, do you even know what Jihad means?

Why, is it some sort of secret that only Muslims can comprehend?

When Osama bin Laden calls on Jihad against the West, I have a rough idea that he's not talking about him striving for the ultimate faith.

No but sadly its stupid media and misinterpretation of a word that have completely given it a bad light.

Jihad contrary to popular belief does not mean "going into actual violent battle" with anything.

Jihad means holy war. but not war in its literal sense how its used today.

I can wage a jihad on curruption, on illiteracy, anything thats considered a vice in society ....

Jihad is an oath to take action against things that are wrong in society, not what Osama goes out and does.

Whats the point of even bringing it up. because its easy for you sitting there to use the word jihad, islamists, militant islam cause it doesn't effect you. but it does to a lot of people who are of the faith who have to live with the media creating a certain impression in the minds of others on how people like us are. Sure, it doesn't bother you to use the word militant islam or hear it on the bbc but frankly, the association is quite detrimental to the people who pretty much know that the actions of these "militants" is not Islamic to begin with and aren't a true reflection of anything the faith even strives to teach.

Jihad can mean a number of things, including a holy war, and yes, a holy war against people of other faiths. Bin Laden is not the first to use the concept like that; surely you must know about the jihad organized by the Ottoman Empire against orthodox Christians.

Islamist and, especially militant islamist, does not mean a Muslim, or someone who practices Islam. They're different words, just like Zionist and a Jew are different words with different meanings. You may feel offended all you want about me and others using them, but who you should really be offended at is those same militant islamists who have hijacked your faith and use it to achieve their despicable goals.

you still dont get it do you. Jihad is something thats practiced against something that is wrong. There is no concept of Jihad against another faith. The ottoman empire practiced its own little version of whatever they wanted to call it .. that ain't jihad. ottoman empire was spread through the sword, people asked to accept faith or die. that is not jihad. Jihad can encompass an actual battle but a war does not = jihad. its a subset for it, fought only if the cause is correct.

Osama considered his war against the States as Jihad cause he considered the states as an evil. The rest of the muslim nation did not consider it jihad because jihad does not include taking the life of 3000 people. get it!?!?

and just because there are "militant islamists" who have hijacked my face does not mean i'm no longer allowed to frown upon anyone else. theyre in the wrong .. i have my own negative feelings that are very strong, but that doesn't mean people ahve a free ticket to spread to coin their own interpretations of words, or create those that assosiate a negative attribute to a complete society of people and use it openly without realizing the consequences of it.

two words for you .. thats fine .. i'm telling you how it effects us. I' not offended by any of it ... i know you dont include a man who practices islam when you say islamist and stuff but i do know how people perceive such words ... thats what i care about .... but you wont see that cause as far as you're concerend, the 2 things are mutually exclusive due to 2 different definations for it and frankly, it doesn't effect you in any way.

Look, baba, ignorance is abound here, there, and everywhere. There are a lot of people who think African-American refers to any person with any roots in Africa living in America. There are people who think anti-semitism refers to racism towards any semitic people. There are people who think Zionism and Judaism are the same thing. There are people who think the Earth is flat, regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.

So what?

The words islamist has a specific meaning in the English language. They refer to specific concepts. You many not like them because some people who are ignorant may misinterpret them, and that's your prerogative. But don't tell me what I should and shouldn't be saying. I like to call a spade a spade. Whether you like it or not, most of today's terrorists hail from Muslim countries and they see their cause as a jihad. It's a problem that most of the world faces, and you face it too. So don't pretend as if changing a goddamn word will save the world from the threats it faces; it won't. What would you have me call those people, "child-killers hailing from Middle East and North Africa"? I'm sure some African-Americans and/or Eastern Europeans would protest.

Ok, lets get to the point "Militant" placed before any identity may it be political or religious, or ethnic is the problem. Militant. What that means is is the endorsing of arms as anything other than a last resort. I already said I think its needs to be used, just not pre-empively, or its just sets a precedence for more violence across the board. May it be noth vs. south Sudan, terrorism, guerilla warfare, etc. And militant patriotism? What do you call the cold war nuclear fear if it isn't who'd drop it first regardless of treaties etc. And that wasn't just america, so i don't consider them anymore responsible for the situation as russia, etc. But lets get to the point, its not a situation to be in when every country has their finger on the red button and wonders who'll drop it first. Or better yet, pre-empively drops it because they anticipate someone else dropping it first.



I beg to differ, I think you do care about countries that worry us, isn't that the entire arguement about pre-empting? So its one thing to say you're not going to listen when view diverge, its another thing to say you don't care about it, because hey, didn't Saddam worry us? It matters quite a bit who we piss off, we're just not all that worried about pissing off France because France isn't about to attack the Sears-Roebuck tower. And that's the only situation that will ultimately work when it comes to having a disagreement. That any disagreement doesn't risk massive violence. We're not the only ones that have a responsibility and interest in maintaining that. It helps us quite a bit that we (and Germany lets say) don't see eye to eye on Iraq and that we gon't resort to violence because of it.

](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Last time i'll actually respond in this thread because its no point even trying to make a point here. You're hell bent on looking at this entire thing from your point of view only.

Islamist: English Language Defination: Muslim: a believer or follower of Islam


[quote=krem] Are islamists not calling on jihad?[/quote]

No, theyre not.

How many people died in the war between Soviet Union and the US? None. Why? Because neither country wanted to take action, because they were responsible. As a side note, Soviet leaders were absolutely terrified of the war; they did everything that they could to avoid the war with the U.S.

What's different now? Islamists are not afraid to openly attack the U.S., because there is no state which we can attack to take out the threat. You have to take an entirely new approach to the problem. That approach has to take into consideration that people who are free of oppression do not, usually, become terrorists.


That's my point. Whoever is worried about the U.S. can be worried all they want. Being worried does not make a target.

Islamist and Muslim are two very different things. A Muslim is a practitioner of the religion; an Islamist is someone who tries to impose a Muslim state on everyone. A good analogy would be fundamental Christians, with the exception that fundies don't usually resort to terrorism to achieve their goals (note, they do it sometimes). Also, Zionist is a good analogy.


Don't take things out of context. In that particular context, I was referring to militant islamists.

None in the US or Soviet Union doesn't mean none. Want lets start with Greece and count out two decades of death shall we?



Well if you yourself said there is no actual state to attack, what the hell are we doing in Iraq? (don't answer that, its rhetoric, and I know why we're there vs. why we said we should be there.) And I agree that we should try a new approach, but how is attacking a country a new approach. Because its ahead of time? Hey, even in Vietnam we theoretically had someone ask us to help first. Here we profferred up some false accusations and only after we couldn't convince everyone did we say fine, we'll go in alone anyways.




It does if we set a precedence for worry being resolved through shock n'awe. If we'd done that to France even once, you'd be damn sure they'd be firing at us now. We didn't so the two countries have developed different ways of aggressing conflict of opinion.


And all of Islam isn't calling for a Jihad (or at least, not this construction of it) just a couple really saavy and convincing individuals.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.h ... ive:search

Muslim Scholars Increasingly Debate Unholy War

ABSTRACT - Moderate Muslim scholars and intellectuals promote view that Muslims will untangle their faith from violence committed in its name only by reappraising sacred texts that are twisted by terrorists; Muhammad Shahrour, Syrian civil engineer, cites verses in Koran's ninth chapter that are source of terrorists' self-justifications and says Muslims must differentiate between religion and state politics because Islam itself is 'human, sensible and just'; he and others held Cairo seminar calling for reinterpretations, and were attacked by hard-core faithful calling them liars, Zionists and infidels; conference in Morocco, attended by Sec Colin Powell, will focus on creating democracy in Muslim world; intellectuals are joined by ordinary Muslims dismayed by bloody image of their faith around world; arrayed against them are powerful institutions and clerics who say Islam is under assault by West and must fight back any way possible; photos; debate is driven by carnage in Iraq and events like slaying of children at Russian school, violence that some Muslims says is harem, shameful and forbidden; Abdul Rahman al-Rashed of Al Arabiya says Muslims must confront fact that most terrorist acts are by Muslims; ordinary people also seem to be grappling with old taboos, some rejecting any criticism and pointing fingers at Israel Prime Min Ariel Sharon and Pres Bush, but others expressing dismay, which was reflected in muted outcry at recent US offensive in Falluja; wide sympathy for those fighting American or Israeli soldiers makes it difficult at same time to mount campaign against violence (L)

No, theyre not.[/quote]
Don't take things out of context. In that particular context, I was referring to militant islamists.[/quote]

you mean in every response? the one above as well? its fine .. like i said, i see a fault in mispresenting information, you dont. there are 13 and 14 year old kids here who read these words and get effected by them. if effects me at the end of the day but it doesn't matter to you. but whatever, its a difference in opinion. my point was to point out to you what the meaning of the word was, as you yourself said its part of the English Language. its being used again and again in this thread (3 times the last time i counted) in the wrong way.