Gore Vidal has famously labeled our nation the “United States of Amnesia.” The anxious conversation in our national media regarding Islam and Muslims, in the U.S. and abroad, is a case in point. Awash in a media tsunami of hysterical pseudo-analysis and editorial hand-wringing over “the problem with Islam,” we are up to our necks in a swelling ocean of forgetfulness, the American Lethe .

The very terms in which the discussion is usually carried on only muddy the waters.

why “jihadists”?

Why not rely on the sturdy and reliable Arabic participle that has proven perfectly satisfactory since it first entered English speech (the OED reports) in 1885: Why not “Defeating the Mujahedin ”?

Perhaps it's because referring to mujahedin would be, well, so 1980s. More precisely, in 1979 President Carter authorized the CIA to work with Pakistani military intelligence to recruit, train, arm, and field a proxy army of mercenaries to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Within a few years, the CIA had secured the assistance and support of the Saudi government, private financiers including Saudi businessman Osama bin Laden, and (applying a business model developed in Vietnam) profits from the Afghan opium industry to fund covert warfare by proxy. The idea wasn't new with Carter's people: John Pilger notes that already in 1965-66 the U.S. client regime in Indonesia “used Islamicist groups to attack communists and anybody who got in the way” ( The Rulers of the World , Verso, 2002).

And it's also as current as Iraq and the contemporary U.S. “war on terror,” which pits the U.S. against some of its own former mercenaries.

“The Islamist contagion carried by the returning Afghan veterans spread rapidly in northern Africa,” from Algeria to Tunisia, to Egypt, to the Taliban in Afghanistan, to Kashmir, Chechnya, and beyond.

There's another noteworthy neologism: “ Islamist contagion.” As late as 1989, the OED informs us, an “Islamist” was “one who is versed in Islamic studies.” So why do people use the term today to connote violent and anti-American extremism, even terrorism?

The Bush administration was happy to negotiate a multi-billion-dollar oil pipeline contract with the Taliban only months before Sept. 11, 2001. After those attacks, the Taliban became an unmitigated evil, posing a danger that could only be met by a massive bombing campaign (which was carried out over the protests of Bread for the World and Oxfam that millions of Afghan civilians were at risk of starvation). The Taliban's predecessors, warlords who included brutes with nicknames like “the Butcher of Kabul,” became the glorified “Northern Alliance” when their weapons were needed against the Taliban (or, currently, against “insurgents”).

In Iraq, Pilger reminds us, Turkish warplanes enjoyed complete impunity to bomb Kurdish villages in U.S.-controlled “no-fly zones” until the U.S. invasion in 2003 made Kurdish guerrillas a potential ally against Saddam Hussein's army.

Most infamously, Saddam Hussein himself was a cherished ally against the theocratic Iranian revolution throughout the 1980s, until the day in August 1990 when he sent Iraqi forces into the Kuwaiti oilfields. Suddenly, the mass graves in Halabja became a reason to bomb Iraqi cities, and to subject the Iraqi people to a decade of “barbaric” and “genocidal” sanctions (in the words of two UN officials who resigned in disgust at the cruelty and duplicity of the sanctions program, organized under U.S. supervision at the UN Security Council).

Given the powerful pressure this political undertow exerts on language, it's understandable that government flacks and reporters alike would seek a simple, uniform code. “Good Muslims” are those who comply with U.S. interests and refrain from criticism or dissent from U.S. policy. When they are armed and aimed at official enemies, “good Muslims” in other countries become “freedom fighters” and “our allies in the war on terror.”

“Bad Muslims,” on the other hand, are those who are uncooperative, even defiant, of U.S. interests. The term “Islamist” plays the same role in American discourse that “Arab nationalist” played in the 1970s: it identifies any Muslim population that refuses to surrender its natural resources, preeminently oil, to U.S. control.

As a case in point, The New York Times reported, in the week before the national elections in Iraq, a coalition of Shi'ite political parties stood “poised to capture the most votes.” Their winning strategy was to promise not to call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq or to allow clerics to hold government positions. After all, “U.S. officials, who wield vast influence in Iraq, would be troubled by an overtly Islamist government” (Jan. 24). The point at first seems inconsistent: U.S. officials don't seem troubled, after all, by the harsh and undemocratic governments of Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

Why, then, is Islam so regularly named when government and media figures deplore “global terrorism”?

The burden of proof is laid on American Muslims to prove that they are loyal citizens. That means refraining from criticizing U.S. foreign policy, including support for Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank, and the war on Iraq.

The message is clear enough: No matter what is done to other Muslims in other countries, you must stand back and remain silent. Muslim communities are being pressed to show their loyalty, with the chilling logic of the president's mantra: “if you're not with us, you're against us.”

-The Rev. Neil Elliott is chaplain at the University Episcopal Center in Minneapolis, Minn. He may be reached by email at chaplain@uec-mn.org.
http://www.thewitness.org/agw/elliott020405.html

The University Episcopal Center in Minneapolis? Didn't they nominate Hugo Chavez for World President?

SamCDKey:

Is it really wise to present yourself in this light?

Tell me, SamCDKey, what is your take on Osama bin Laden?

Do you support the murder of civilians by terrorists?

Moreover, do you not think the United States has an obligation to her citizens to protect them against against the threats to them and to the interests of the nation as a whole?

SamCDKey:

Is it really wise to present yourself in this light?

Tell me, SamCDKey, what is your take on Osama bin Laden?

Do you support the murder of civilians by terrorists?

Moreover, do you not think the United States has an obligation to her citizens to protect them against against the threats to them and to the interests of the nation as a whole?

1. What is the US policy/action against Osama bin laden

2. What innocent civilians have been protected against terrorists by the US

3. Where has the US succeeded in reducing the threat of terrorism

4. This article is written by an American.

It is certainly odd to me that the U.S. has allowed the Shiites (Iran) to virtually control the Iraqi national government, as the writing on the wall is that Iraq will effectively end up being a puppet of Iran, but at least Saddam is gone, and millions of Iraqis, I think, are very happy about that, it is too bad that the Iraqi people cannot mend their differences to get along, they have been through so much together already, but those tribal and religious differences seem to be greater than their desire to minimize them.

It is certainly odd to me that the U.S. has allowed the Shiites (Iran) to virtually control the Iraqi national government, as the writing on the wall is that Iraq will effectively end up being a puppet of Iran, but at least Saddam is gone, and millions of Iraqis, I think, are very happy about that, it is too bad that the Iraqi people cannot mend their differences to get along, they have been through so much together already, but those tribal and religious differences seem to be greater than their desire to minimize them.

Can you show me any evidence that the Iraqis are happier post-Saddam?

According to the evidence I have, the reverse is true.

SamCDKey:

1. What is the US policy/action against Osama bin laden

He is wanted dead or alive. We intend to kill him if taken alive, and will dance around his corpse if he is found dead.

2. What innocent civilians have been protected against terrorists by the US

Civilians in the United States, Europe, Israel, various Moslem countries, et cetera.

The United States is waging a war on Islamic terrorism. Any nations impacted by Islamic terrorism and who engage with us in this war are held to be part of the greater protection of the United States, as much as that is feasible.

Numerous terrorist acts have been stopped in New York through new efforts, for instance.

3. Where has the US succeeded in reducing the threat of terrorism

It's virtually dismantled Al'Qaeda and pinned down the rest. It also forced Omar Qaddafi to abandon ambitions for ABC weaponary.

4. This article is written by an American.

Yes, but as a Moslem you should consider your image in light of what it reflects on your comrades. For instance, I see your writings and am instantly convinced even more so that Moslems are evil.

Also, you will note that you did not answer any of my questions. Very rude of you. Would you care to do that and tell us what your position is?

He is wanted dead or alive. We intend to kill him if taken alive, and will dance around his corpse if he is found dead.

And the action taken towards this goal?

Civilians in the United States, Europe, Israel, various Moslem countries, et cetera.
How?

The United States is waging a war on Islamic terrorism. Any nations impacted by Islamic terrorism and who engage with us in this war are held to be part of the greater protection of the United States, as much as that is feasible.

And terrorism has been reduced in which Islamic nation?

Numerous terrorist acts have been stopped in New York through new efforts, for instance.

Evidence?

It's virtually dismantled Al'Qaeda and pinned down the rest. It also forced Omar Qaddafi to abandon ambitions for ABC weaponary.



Evidence?

Yes, but as a Moslem you should consider your image in light of what it reflects on your comrades. For instance, I see your writings and am instantly convinced even more so that Moslems are evil.

Also, you will note that you did not answer any of my questions. Very rude of you. Would you care to do that and tell us what your position is?


This excerpt from the article answers it pretty well, I think:


The burden of proof is laid on American Muslims to prove that they are loyal citizens. That means refraining from criticizing U.S. foreign policy, including support for Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank, and the war on Iraq.

The message is clear enough: No matter what is done to other Muslims in other countries, you must stand back and remain silent. Muslim communities are being pressed to show their loyalty, with the chilling logic of the president's mantra: “if you're not with us, you're against us.”

Do you realise you are asking me to justify the opinion of an American Christian, because you know that I am a Muslim? Or do you believe that the Rev Neil Elliott is a supporter of "Islamic terrorism"? :p

If the Iraqis would rather have the days of Saddam over their current possibility of relative freedom, then the naysayers of the war were correct, that the Iraqis don't want freedom of religion and speech, they just want to be overlorded by tribal leaders who almost always want to fight, and who respect only the gun.

Hey samcdkey, of what country are you a citizen?

Hey samcdkey, of what country are you a citizen?

Why?:confused:

SamCDKey:

And the action taken towards this goal?

Principally the invasion of Afghanistan. Secondarily international actions against Al'Qaeda, including asset freezing, arrests, et cetera.

How?

Security measures and fighting wars in other countries so the wars aren't fought in our lands.

And terrorism has been reduced in which Islamic nation?

Afghanistan, for one. The terrorists are being hunted, killed, and the people liberated - women are especially enjoying tremendously increased freedoms.

Saudi Arabia is doing good in attacking anti-government Islamic terrorists, too.

Pakistan is annihilating terrorists in the border region.

Evidence?

I'll find you some good articles on various terrorist attacks prevented by New York officials in a few minutes.

Evidence?

I think "The War in Afghanistan" proves the first statement. In regards to Qaddafi (Muammar, not Omar, excuse me):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3408463.stm
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1787.cfm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6617/libyan_expert.html

“ The burden of proof is laid on American Muslims to prove that they are loyal citizens. That means refraining from criticizing U.S. foreign policy, including support for Israel's illegal occupation of the West Bank, and the war on Iraq.

The message is clear enough: No matter what is done to other Muslims in other countries, you must stand back and remain silent. Muslim communities are being pressed to show their loyalty, with the chilling logic of the president's mantra: “if you're not with us, you're against us.” ”

Citizens of our nations are expected to be patriotic.

Are you not an Indian patriot? Is it not expected that you support India?

Just wonder were your loyalties lie.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/07/national/a171922D75.DTL&feed=rss.news

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2166851&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-3024220

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/08/10/News/325885.html

Oh, so he's a Muslim from India, kinda hard to have a national allegiance when your religion wants to subdue it for Islam, way to go samkey.

http://www.playfuls.com/news_10_7418-Afghanistan-Conflict-Will-Intensify-In-2007-Vows-Taliban-Leader.html

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.afghan04jan04001519,0,1754629.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

SamCDKey:

Principally the invasion of Afghanistan. Secondarily international actions against Al'Qaeda, including asset freezing, arrests, et cetera.



So is the Al-Qaeda no longer a threat?

Security measures and fighting wars in other countries so the wars aren't fought in our lands.


So Iraq is now less of a terrorist threat to America?

Afghanistan, for one. The terrorists are being hunted, killed, and the people liberated - women are especially enjoying tremendously increased freedoms.
They are?

Someone should let them know:

Taliban commander vows bloody 2007 in Afghanistan
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2007-01-02T105030Z_01_ISL148796_RTRUKOC_0_US-AFGHAN-TALIBAN.xml&WTmodLoc=IntNewsHome_C2_worldNews-6

Pain of Afghan suicide women
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6196716.stm

Saudi Arabia is doing good in attacking anti-government Islamic terrorists, too.

Someone should let them know:
Saudi Citizens Funding Iraq Insurgents
Iraqi Officials, U.S. Panel Says Saudis Sending 'Boxes Of Cash' To Sunni Militants
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/08/world/main2240138.shtml



...therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years. Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias



Pakistan is annihilating terrorists in the border region.

Boy you are up to date on world news aren't you?

Pakistan has signed a deal with pro-Taleban militants on the Afghan border.
http://freeinternetpress.com/story.php?sid=9780

On Sept. 5, Pashtun tribal leaders in Pakistan's North Waziristan border region signed a pact with the central government led by President Pervez Musharraf, an avowed ally of the U.S. in its declared war on terrorism.

Under the agreement, the Pakistani army, which had fought fierce battles with pro-Taliban militants, withdrew from the region, leaving a tribal force in charge of border posts. In return, the tribesmen foreswore giving support, training and sanctuary to Taliban and al-Qaeda-linked fighters, although some foreigners were allowed to remain.

Yet the violence has not abated. Instead, Afghan officials and the U.S. military say that since the pact was signed, cross-border attacks have surged.

Like many Afghans, Khail believes that despite Musharraf's persistent denials, his country's Inter-Services Intelligence agency still supports the Taliban and at least some of its allies. The intelligence documents show that the U.S. military shared this suspicion as recently as the start of this year.

The New York Times leads with further proof of how Islamic militants are operating freely in northern Pakistan, resulting in what the paper calls "virtually a Taliban mini-state." In September, the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement in North Waziristan, but militants are "openly flouting" the terms of the accord, which critics say is flawed because it lacks any sort of enforcement mechanism.



I'll find you some good articles on various terrorist attacks prevented by New York officials in a few minutes.

Are they written by the same people who have been keeping you up to date? ;)

I think "The War in Afghanistan" proves the first statement. In regards to Qaddafi (Muammar, not Omar, excuse me):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3408463.stm
http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/1787.cfm
http://www.cfr.org/publication/6617/libyan_expert.html


The War in Afghanistan is a joke. Can you honestly see terrorism decreasing under these circumstances?

NATO says civilian toll too high in Afghanistan
Alliance vows to cut casualties in 2007
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/bal-te.afghan04jan04001519,0,1754629.story?coll=bal-nationworld-headlines

NATO downplays Taliban threat in Afghanistan
http://english.people.com.cn/200701/04/eng20070104_337961.html

Gadafi is a bigger joke:

Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi has given US academics a lecture on democracy, declaring his country's government freer than any in the West.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4839670.stm

Muammar Qadhafi's Official website (in Arabic, English and French) is a collection of rantsthoughts by the Libyan Numero Uno about politics, including terrorism (Talibans: guilty of "tergiversation libertinism"), Turkey's EU membership (Turk Islamists "believe in polygamy, maids and what the right hand possessed, i.e. European Christian women") and AIDS (a CIA creation). A companion website gives you Qadhafi the Humanitarian, Qadhafi the World Thinker and Qadhafi the Inventor of the Safest Vehicle On Earth ("the leader spent so many hours of his valuable time thinking of an effective solution").
http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/46593

European Union foreign ministers have agreed to end sanctions against Libya, including an arms embargo.

Italy had argued for the lifting of the 18-year-old arms ban, so that it could supply Libya with hi-tech equipment intended to curb illegal migration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3732514.stm

Yeah, right!

So the US has removed Libya from its terror list.
It is now aiding Libya.
Libya is a US ally.

Does deja vu (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm) ring a bell?:rolleyes:


Citizens of our nations are expected to be patriotic.

Are you not an Indian patriot? Is it not expected that you support India?

Of course, but I define patriotism as supporting the right decisions of the government, not ANY decisions, especially not those aimed at destabilising the country or making it a laughing stock of the world.

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” -Edward Abbey.

Are you a patriot James?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/07/07/national/a171922D75.DTL&feed=rss.news

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2166851&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/comsite5/bin/pdinventory.pl?pdlanding=1&referid=2930&purchase_type=ITM&item_id=0286-3024220

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/08/10/News/325885.html

Looks like I was right. *yawn*

Are they written by the same people who have been keeping you up to date?

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=13749

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2005/101005faketerror.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=VAN20060625&articleId=2695

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/08/21/michigan_terror/index_np.html

Sad when your own government plays you for a patsy.
Sadder when you continue to keep falling for it.

SamCDKey:

Is it really wise to present yourself in this light?

Tell me, SamCDKey, what is your take on Osama bin Laden?

Do you support the murder of civilians by terrorists?

Moreover, do you not think the United States has an obligation to her citizens to protect them against against the threats to them and to the interests of the nation as a whole?

If you, or anyone who has been here for any length of time, don't already know the answers to those questions, then you haven't been reading SamCDKey's posts at all.

Just take some time, read her/his posts ....the answers will be forthcoming with minimal effort.

Baron Max

If you, or anyone who has been here for any length of time, don't already know the answers to those questions, then you haven't been reading SamCDKey's posts at all.

Just take some time, read her/his posts ....the answers will be forthcoming with minimal effort.

Baron Max

If you close your eyes real tight Baron, do the bogeymen disappear?:eek:

I'm just following my President:;)

... spread happiness everywhere by sharing knowledge, removing pain and giving part of one's rightful earning.

samcdkey,

“ Originally Posted by President of India
... spread happiness everywhere by sharing knowledge, removing pain and giving part of one's rightful earning. ”


Really? it seem that you support the indiscriminate killing of your fellow Moslems and delight in the losses of the people who are trying to protect those people, you take advantage of the Hospitality of my country to further your education, and then spit in our face's, tell me why you are going to school here, instead of India? yes tell me why your schooling is taking place here rather than India, would some of that reason have something to do with being from a Moslem Family? and the status of females in Moslem society?

Well if the US can lower its democratic principles enough to buy oil from countries supporting Islamic terrorism, I can lower mine to obtain the best possible education.

btw, I'm back in India.:p

And I support whoever I believe to be right. Frankly Saddam, al-Sadr and the US government are all opportunists killing innocents for their vested interests.

And you should see the Muslim women in India;)
http://www.sania-mirza.in/

Good Luck

Well if the US can lower its democratic principles enough to buy oil from countries supporting Islamic terrorism, I can lower mine to obtain the best possible education.

So ....your position is that if someone else does something that you feel is wrong, it's then okay for you to go against your own principles and do the same/similar things?? Interesting, Sam. Is that another Muslim principle that we should begin to watch out for?

btw, I'm back in India.

And living in the ghettos and slums of Calcutta? Or are you living high on the hog in a palace with servants and slaves and Untouchables to do the dirty work?

Baron Max

So ....your position is that if someone else does something that you feel is wrong, it's then okay for you to go against your own principles and do the same/similar things?? Interesting, Sam. Is that another Muslim principle that we should begin to watch out for?



And living in the ghettos and slums of Calcutta? Or are you living high on the hog in a palace with servants and slaves and Untouchables to do the dirty work?

Baron Max

I don't believe an education falls under the same category as an invasion, but you are free to indulge yourself.

Is it so hard to believe that I might not live in a mega mansion?

Tell me what do you read in my posts that brings a rich socialite with mansions and servants to mind?:D

And I know Americans have low attention spans but could we address the topic instead of my personal life?

I don't believe an education falls under the same category as ...

So you adjust your principles based on "categories"? Interesting.

You suck the American tit for all you can get, then move back to India and immediately begin to denigrate America and all she stands for, huh?

Baron Max

Hay Baron when did she ever stop bitching about America? and did you notice that she didn't answer the question, just changed the subject.

So you adjust your principles based on "categories"? Interesting.

You suck the American tit for all you can get, then move back to India and immediately begin to denigrate America and all she stands for, huh?

Baron Max

its called an American "education".;)

Hay Baron when did she ever stop bitching about America? and did you notice that she didn't answer the question, just changed the subject.

I believe I have answered that question.

i.e. please address the post not my personal life.

I am not required to answer personal questions.

And I did notice that both you and the Baron are shifting focus away from the topic onto me? I wonder why?:rolleyes:

Because you show no respect for our Countries Hospitality, and the fact that I believe that in your in society you would not have been able to achieve the education and social status, as a female Moslem. You are always a great one about showing respect but you don't show any for a country that makes it possible to reach your dreams.

Because you show no respect for our Countries Hospitality, and the fact that I believe that in your in society you would not have been able to achieve the education and social status, as a female Moslem. You are always a great one about showing respect but you don't show any for a country that makes it possible to reach your dreams.

You might be interested to know that WE have had a woman Prime Minister.:D

And only 60 years since Independence too!

Gorsh! It is the United States of Amnesia, isn't it? (<---getting back on topic)

Hay Baron when did she ever stop bitching about America? and did you notice that she didn't answer the question, just changed the subject.

Sam just likes to stir the shit pot to see how we'll all react. And, no, she never, ever answers any direct questions ...always turning to more bullshit and innuendo, or even changing the entire topic!

We'd all be better off if we just stopped responding to her. That's exactly what she wants .....attention.

Baron Max

Sam just likes to stir the shit pot to see how we'll all react. And, no, she never, ever answers any direct questions ...always turning to more bullshit and innuendo, or even changing the entire topic!

We'd all be better off if we just stopped responding to her. That's exactly what she wants .....attention.

Baron Max

So you try to avoid giving me attention by ignoring the topic and asking personal questions instead? Wow!

back on topic.

From the article linked in the OP:

We don't ordinarily refer to members of the Ku Klux Klan as “Christianists.” To take more recent historical examples, when Pat Robertson flew to Honduras to praise the Lord while others passed the ammunition to members of the U.S.-sponsored contra army – people who would go on to bomb schools and hospitals and assassinate elected officials in Sandinista Nicaragua – no one thought to call the contras “Christian terrorists,” or to accuse Robertson of “inciting radical Christianism.” When American Fundamentalists and the White House alike embraced born-again general-turned-president Efraín Ríos-Montt as he launched his brutal “scorched-Communist” policy against indigenous Guatemalans, no pundits took to the airwaves to discuss “the problem with Christianity.”

Why, then, is Islam so regularly named when government and media figures deplore “global terrorism”?

A decade ago, I sat at an elegant dinner table with an erudite colleague, a secular scholar of Lebanese Muslim extraction. Someone presumed on the good cheer of the evening to ask him to explain “Muslim rage” against the United States. With a self-restraint that belied the tears welling in his eyes, he recited a litany of injustices, from occupied Palestine to Bosnia, Indonesia to Algeria, all answered with relative indifference, if not hostility, on the part of the United States. “How do you think we should feel?” he replied.

I wonder how many Muslims feel confident enough, safe enough, to express similar sentiments in America today. Recently I met with two student leaders, one Christian and the other Muslim, to explore possible interfaith activities on campus. The Muslim was polite, but wary. “We Muslims recognize our duty to represent our faith honestly and honorably, whenever we're asked. But we're really, really tired of having to answer the same three questions from non-Muslims, all the time: ‘Why do you favor holy war?' ‘Why do you oppress women?' And ‘why do you hate America?'”

Although as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died since March, 2003, as “collateral damage” from U.S. bombs, even “liberal” churches find it easier to hold Sunday morning adult forums on whether Islam is a violent religion than on whether our nation is waging an unjust war. When voices are raised questioning the war, conversation too readily degenerates into a referendum on the personality and sincerity of President Bush, when we ought to make a clear-eyed assessment of the effects of a decade of “genocidal” sanctions, the deadly effects of radioactive weapons (the depleted uranium used by U.S. forces), and an obscenely corrupt “reconstruction” cartel that profits from the misery of the Iraqi people.

It's time for progressive Christians to clear our heads of the fog of this stupid, brutal war. It's time we declared, loudly and insistently, that Islam is not the problem: U.S. foreign policy is the problem. It's time we renounce the polite, irrelevant role to which our faith has been relegated. It's time we take the heat off our Muslim neighbors, here and abroad, and stand up for the justice and compassion that both our faiths require.

Talk about a change of subject, you could get whiplash from this<>

Hey samkey, why didn't you go to one of the fine Islamic colleges rather than to a college in the "U.S. of Amnesia?"

And by the way, what are the five top Islamic colleges?

RE United States of Amnesia

Language has always been a political tool to reach a political end. Ever read Julius Cease’s Commentarii de Bello Gallico (what a great work of propaganda). Ever think about the word “infidel” or “sinner”? What of the misconception that the word “Jew” refers to a race, when really it’s merely another belief.

As to “Amnesia”; the leader of any country must ultimately increase the prosperity, and thus security, of her/his follow citizens. Post-WWII the USA emerged as the World Leader and has remains so ever since –in pretty much any measure of the word (money, science, political influence, military might, etc..). Following this the USA set about creating World-wide institutions to maintain and ensure that they remain on the top. Europe/AU/NZ was incorporated and soon so was Japan and Korea and ect… Those institutions are defended at any cost.

There really is no amnesia.
That’s pretty much it.

Anyone who tries to buck the system is fought against in one way or another by one means or another. Of course language plays a part in that fight. Think: “Red Menace” now Russia and China are members of the UN, UNSCO, WHO, IMF, WB, WTO, ….

Arab States, because of the energy field they command and maybe even because of the religious-inspired self-importance or right justness (I’m just imaging if you truly think “God” the-one-and-only is only on your side, well then ….) probably thought at one time they’d do something other than support those institutions that maintain World Order and thus USA Hegemony. They became “Arab Nationalists” (kind of like Red Menace). Really, Saddam was the last one to fall and the USA one way or other remains the World Leader and probably will so for a long time to come.


It really just one big game isn’t it???

:confused:
Michael

SamCDKey:

So is the Al-Qaeda no longer a threat?

A threat, but a severely reduced one. Compared to what they were in 2001, they are far less.

So Iraq is now less of a terrorist threat to America?

Yes. As far as I know, Iraq is a localized insurgency fighting mostly -Iraqis-. You know, murderin their own people.

They are?

Someone should let them know:

“ Taliban commander vows bloody 2007 in Afghanistan
http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...C2_worldNews-6 ”

“ Pain of Afghan suicide women
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6196716.stm ”

Sure a Taliban commander claims there will be more blood - it is in his best interest to say he'll do damage to America. He's part of an illegitimate and destroyed government which is clinging on in one or two areas.

Moreover, a woman commiting suicide because Islam is a horrible religion, is hardly surprising. Too bad we couldn't bring secularism to Afghanistan.

You'll note, however, that women's organizations the world over claimed the Taliban to be tremendously evil to women.

Hell, even your fellow religionists!

http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen1.htm

Someone should let them know:
“ Saudi Citizens Funding Iraq Insurgents
Iraqi Officials, U.S. Panel Says Saudis Sending 'Boxes Of Cash' To Sunni Militants
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/...n2240138.shtml ”

“ ...therefore the Saudi leadership is preparing to substantially revise its Iraq policy. Options now include providing Sunni military leaders (primarily ex-Baathist members of the former Iraqi officer corps, who make up the backbone of the insurgency) with the same types of assistance -- funding, arms and logistical support -- that Iran has been giving to Shiite armed groups for years. Another possibility includes the establishment of new Sunni brigades to combat the Iranian-backed militias ”

The insurgency are not terrorists in the broader Islamic sense. HOwever, I strongly suggest we put the pressure on Saudi Arabia to butt out. Our support of them is dependent upon them being pro-American. If they aren't anymore, we should deal with them.

In regards to your lengthy Pakistan related things:

Pakistan will deal with the problem if their tribal issues are not working. This is especially true when America puts pressure on her to do so.

The War in Afghanistan is a joke. Can you honestly see terrorism decreasing under these circumstances?

Considering Osama bin Laden is dying of kidney failure in a hole and the Taliban is crushed...

“ NATO says civilian toll too high in Afghanistan
Alliance vows to cut casualties in 2007
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nat...orld-headlines ”

“ NATO downplays Taliban threat in Afghanistan
http://english.people.com.cn/200701/...04_337961.html ”

Killing a few civilians is not a problem in the long run. Moreover, NATO is saying the Taliban threat is not much at all right now.

So the US has removed Libya from its terror list.
It is now aiding Libya.
Libya is a US ally.

Does deja vu ring a bell?

Considering Libya has pledged reform and is being internationally monitored...

Of course, but I define patriotism as supporting the right decisions of the government, not ANY decisions, especially not those aimed at destabilising the country or making it a laughing stock of the world.

The laughing stock of the world?

That is why people are litterally breaking down our doors trying to get in? That even -you- came here for education? (Or is Baron Max said right? That you were just sucking on our teet to get the milk and then ran back to India?)

Moreover, patriotism in the United States does not preclude critique of the government. However, blatantly supporting "Islamic" causes over American ones when the two clash treason here in America, just as every country has a right to demand its citizenry think of their nation as their first priority.

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” -Edward Abbey.

Are you a patriot James?

Of course, that's why I vote Republican.

Sad when your own government plays you for a patsy.
Sadder when you continue to keep falling for it.

You would do well to note that PrisonPlanet is a conspiracy website that thinks the world isc ontrolled by Reptile Aliens who practice Satanic Freemasonry and Zionism.

Wait, a Moslem with a conspiracy against the Jews?! WHO WOULD HAVE GUESSED!?!

Moreover, Michiganers being idiots does not equal the FBI being idiots, when the FBI -is saying they are being wrong-.

Please, SamCDKey, get a grip on the facts. I'm sure there is -something- in the Quran against lies and ignorance.

SamCDKey:

A threat, but a severely reduced one. Compared to what they were in 2001, they are far less.

You mean now that they have graduated from a local organisation to an international one?

http://news.google.co.in/news?q=al-qaeda&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&sa=N&tab=wn


Yes. As far as I know, Iraq is a localized insurgency fighting mostly -Iraqis-. You know, murderin their own people.

Which is why the US is so reluctant to leave Iraq?:rolleyes:

Sure a Taliban commander claims there will be more blood - it is in his best interest to say he'll do damage to America. He's part of an illegitimate and destroyed government which is clinging on in one or two areas.

of course, and the world is a much safer place.

Senior Pakistani officials are urging Nato countries to accept the Taliban and work towards a new coalition government in Kabul that might exclude the Afghan president Hamid Karzai.

Moreover, a woman commiting suicide because Islam is a horrible religion, is hardly surprising. Too bad we couldn't bring secularism to Afghanistan.


Changed your mind then?
women are especially enjoying tremendously increased freedoms.

You'll note, however, that women's organizations the world over claimed the Taliban to be tremendously evil to women.

Hell, even your fellow religionists!

http://www.islamfortoday.com/afghanistanwomen1.htm


Which has what to do with US bringing them greater freedom?

The insurgency are not terrorists in the broader Islamic sense. HOwever, I strongly suggest we put the pressure on Saudi Arabia to butt out. Our support of them is dependent upon them being pro-American. If they aren't anymore, we should deal with them.


Yeah i saw the "pressure" the US brought about on Saudi Arabia. :p
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/13/saudi.sunnis/index.html
Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah has warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia would back the Sunnis if the United States pulls out of Iraq, according to a senior American official.

The official said the king "read the riot act" to the vice president when the two met last month in the Saudi capital, Riyadh.

In regards to your lengthy Pakistan related things:

Pakistan will deal with the problem if their tribal issues are not working. This is especially true when America puts pressure on her to do so.

Is this before or after NATO follows Pakistan's suggestions to admit defeat?

Considering Osama bin Laden is dying of kidney failure in a hole and the Taliban is crushed...


The US gave Osama kidney failure? And crushed Taliban? Ah more news "updates" from your friendly Fox news?

Killing a few civilians is not a problem in the long run. Moreover, NATO is saying the Taliban threat is not much at all right now.



You mean they are not going to admit defeat?


Afghanistan war nears 'tipping point'
Government support is flagging, NATO is split on strategy, and Taliban fighters are revitalized.
By Laura King and David Holley, Times Staff Writers
December 9, 2006
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-insurgency9dec09,0,2649427.story?coll=la-home-headlines


Considering Libya has pledged reform and is being internationally monitored...



deja vu...

The laughing stock of the world?

That is why people are litterally breaking down our doors trying to get in? That even -you- came here for education? (Or is Baron Max said right? That you were just sucking on our teet to get the milk and then ran back to India?)

*sigh* where have you been?

April 23, 2003
Foreign graduate applicants decrease
By Elizabeth Dunbar

International graduate student applications are down 24 percent from one year ago, prompting University admissions officials to brainstorm recruitment options.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2003/04/23/5727

Schools struggle to combat foreign student drop
Educators encourage active recruitment, hope numbers will climb back up
Updated: 12:26 p.m. ET Aug. 8, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14034413/


I was curious about the US. I'm not sorry I went, but I'm glad to be back home.



Moreover, patriotism in the United States does not preclude critique of the government. However, blatantly supporting "Islamic" causes over American ones when the two clash treason here in America, just as every country has a right to demand its citizenry think of their nation as their first priority.

Of course, that's why I vote Republican.



Ah that explains it.
You would do well to note that PrisonPlanet is a conspiracy website that thinks the world isc ontrolled by Reptile Aliens who practice Satanic Freemasonry and Zionism.

Did you see the other links? Or were you dazzled by prison planet?

The FBI paid almost $56,000 to two confidential informants who are key to the case against seven men accused of being involved in a terrorist plot to blow up the Sears Tower and other targets.

According to a document filed by federal prosecutors, the FBI paid one unnamed informant $10,500 and an additional $8,815 in expenses. They also paid a second informant $17,000 with another $19,570 for expenses.

Besides the news from the prison planet link can be verified through other sources:

New York subway threat was a hoax, security sources admit


Jamie Wilson in Washington
Wednesday October 12, 2005
The Guardian

The alleged terror threat that sparked a big security alert on New York's trains and subway last week turned out to be a hoax concocted by an unreliable US informant in Iraq, it emerged yesterday.

Uniformed and undercover police descended on the city's subway system on Friday after what was described as a "specific threat" that a terror cell was planning to explode bombs concealed in pushchairs, suitcases and rucksacks. At one point a section of Penn Station was sealed off as security staff wearing chemical hazard suits investigated a "soupy green substance" found in a Pepsi bottle. It turned out be a cleaning substance.


No Evidence' Of NYC Subway Threat
Homeland Security Official Says Intel Agencies Agree Threat Wasn't Real

NEW YORK, Oct. 11, 2005
An official at the Department of Homeland Security tells CBS News correspondent Bob Orr that "no evidence has surfaced through intelligence to substantiate the threat" last week against the New York City subway system.

"All intelligence agencies agree there is no evidence to support the original information," the official said.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/11/national/main934039.shtml


Please, SamCDKey, get a grip on the facts. I'm sure there is -something- in the Quran against lies and ignorance.

hilarious.

No the Koran is written so that the Moslems can blame all the problem on every one else and then have permission to kill them for their arrogance of not believing that the Koran is the message of peace and understanding.

SamCDKey:

You mean now that they have graduated from a local organisation to an international one?

Wow. I did not know that people could speak out of their anuses...

I mean, this really surprised me. You should join the circus or something.

Clearly you have no knowledge of the fact that Al'Qaeda has always been an international organization.

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, most of the hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis, the second in command is an Egyptian, there are tons of Afghanis, Somalis, Sudanese, Omanese, Yemenese...

Which is why the US is so reluctant to leave Iraq?

We're humanitarians. We also have a vested interest in seeing Iraq prosperous, democratic, secular, and stable. Just like the US of A.

of course, and the world is a much safer place.

I don't see terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I don't see 3,000 people slaughtered in a matter of an hour who just went to work...

Changed your mind then?

“ Originally Posted by Prince_James:confused:
women are especially enjoying tremendously increased freedoms. ”

The Afghanis are not all as "progressive" as those who have dropped the nonsense Sharia imposed by the Taliban.

International organizations, however, agree that Afghani women are better off now than under the Taliban.

Here's some info on how women were treated under the Taliban:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/09/24/taliban_women/print.html
http://www.hazara.net/taliban/revocation_of_rights/revocation_of_rights.html
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/taliban.html
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=6332

And how some Afghani men are still horrible:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/afghan-womens-rights-advocate-murdered.php

Women are better off:

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/afghan-women-2k2.htm

Which has what to do with US bringing them greater freedom?

Considering we destroyed the Taliban and women are more free, the US just gave the Afghani women one hellavua gift.

Yeah i saw the "pressure" the US brought about on Saudi Arabia.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...nis/index.html

Saudi Arabia knows that US support is vital to them.

Is this before or after NATO follows Pakistan's suggestions to admit defeat?

We will not admit defeat as we've all ready attained victory. The Taliban remenants are like cockroaches: Hard to kill the last couple of stragglers.

The US gave Osama kidney failure? And crushed Taliban? Ah more news "updates" from your friendly Fox news?

Actually, I watch CNN more. Lou Dobbs is my main man.

Anyway...yes, Osama bin Laden is widely thought to have kidney failure, and I don't see Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. Do you? I mean, last I checked, they were driven out of power, and a whole brand new government is in charge.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10319

You mean they are not going to admit defeat?

NOt at all.

Considering, you know, we've won...tremendous victories. ANd Afghanistan can do shit to any NATO country whatsoever. It is just a matter of weeding them out.

I'd suggest nerve gas in the caves, but that's just me.

*sigh* where have you been?

In an America where people, again, litterally break down our doors to get in.

Seriously: We have millions of illegal immigrants ontop of the tens of thousands of legal ones. As well as, of course, guests like yourself, who then spit in our face.

Naughty naughty.

International graduate student applications are down 24 percent from one year ago, prompting University admissions officials to brainstorm recruitment options.
http://www.mndaily.com/articles/2003/04/23/5727 ”

“ Schools struggle to combat foreign student drop
Educators encourage active recruitment, hope numbers will climb back up
Updated: 12:26 p.m. ET Aug. 8, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14034413/ ”

Wow. One year where we don't have that many foreign students come. The catastrophe!

It doesn't mention we have thousands more foreign students.

In regards to the supposed "hoax":

Whether or not there was an actual plan to blow it u, the FBI and New York officials responded to tackle the issue. Seeing how the plot was either foiled or never was planned, we'll never know what exactly went down.

Other foiled attacks:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html

Oh, and SamCDKey. Remember what Islam says about liars:

http://www.islamtomorrow.com/lies.asp

SamCDKey:

Wow. I did not know that people could speak out of their anuses...

I mean, this really surprised me. You should join the circus or something.

Clearly you have no knowledge of the fact that Al'Qaeda has always been an international organization.

Osama bin Laden is a Saudi, most of the hijackers on 9-11 were Saudis, the second in command is an Egyptian, there are tons of Afghanis, Somalis, Sudanese, Omanese, Yemenese...


Oh really?

So they were always present in Iraq, London, Sudan, and online?

In the wake of its evacuation from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and its successors have migrated online to escape detection in an atmosphere of increased international vigilance. As a result, the organization’s use of the Internet has grown more sophisticated, encompassing financing, recruitment, networking, mobilization, publicity, as well as information dissemination, gathering, and sharing. More than other paramilitary organizations, al-Qaeda has embraced the Web for these purposes.

We're humanitarians. We also have a vested interest in seeing Iraq prosperous, democratic, secular, and stable. Just like the US of A.

Make up your mind.:rolleyes:

Security measures and fighting wars in other countries so the wars aren't fought in our lands.


I don't see terrorist camps in Afghanistan. I don't see 3,000 people slaughtered in a matter of an hour who just went to work...



The Afghanis are not all as "progressive" as those who have dropped the nonsense Sharia imposed by the Taliban.

International organizations, however, agree that Afghani women are better off now than under the Taliban.

Here's some info on how women were treated under the Taliban:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/6185.htm
http://archive.salon.com/mwt/feature/2001/09/24/taliban_women/print.html
http://www.hazara.net/taliban/revocation_of_rights/revocation_of_rights.html
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/taliban.html
http://www.feminist.org/news/newsbyte/uswirestory.asp?id=6332

And how some Afghani men are still horrible:

http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/09/afghan-womens-rights-advocate-murdered.php

Women are better off:

http://hrw.org/backgrounder/wrd/afghan-women-2k2.htm


Already addressed this.



Considering we destroyed the Taliban and women are more free, the US just gave the Afghani women one hellavua gift.


See previous comment

Saudi Arabia knows that US support is vital to them.

And vice versa.

We will not admit defeat as we've all ready attained victory. The Taliban remenants are like cockroaches: Hard to kill the last couple of stragglers.


Make up your mind


Considering we destroyed the Taliban and women are more free, the US just gave the Afghani women one hellavua gift.




Actually, I watch CNN more. Lou Dobbs is my main man.

Anyway...yes, Osama bin Laden is widely thought to have kidney failure, and I don't see Afghanistan controlled by the Taliban. Do you? I mean, last I checked, they were driven out of power, and a whole brand new government is in charge.

http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=10319

Hmm. Has NATO gone home then? Since there is no more Taliban?



Considering, you know, we've won...tremendous victories. ANd Afghanistan can do shit to any NATO country whatsoever. It is just a matter of weeding them out.

Yeah yeah. Mission accomplished. We are winning the war on terror etc.




In an America where people, again, litterally break down our doors to get in.

Seriously: We have millions of illegal immigrants ontop of the tens of thousands of legal ones. As well as, of course, guests like yourself, who then spit in our face.

Naughty naughty.

I'm glad you consider illegal immigrants as equal to students.

Wow. One year where we don't have that many foreign students come. The catastrophe!

It doesn't mention we have thousands more foreign students.


Actually its been 3 years from 2003 to 2006

In regards to the supposed "hoax":

Whether or not there was an actual plan to blow it u, the FBI and New York officials responded to tackle the issue. Seeing how the plot was either foiled or never was planned, we'll never know what exactly went down.

Other foiled attacks:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/02/09/whitehouse.plots/index.html


Yeah all the "foiled" attacks with surprisingly little evidence. Keeps the threat at orange level though, and Haliburton in Iraq doesn't it?

Oh, and SamCDKey. Remember what Islam says about liars:



Mission Accomplished.:p ;)

SamCDKey:

Oh really?

So they were always present in Iraq, London, Sudan, and online?

“ In the wake of its evacuation from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda and its successors have migrated online to escape detection in an atmosphere of increased international vigilance. As a result, the organization’s use of the Internet has grown more sophisticated, encompassing financing, recruitment, networking, mobilization, publicity, as well as information dissemination, gathering, and sharing. More than other paramilitary organizations, al-Qaeda has embraced the Web for these purposes. ”

Iraq - possibly. London - Yes (sleeper Al'Qaeda operatives and vocal bin Laden supporting clerics). Sudan - Yes. Online, not as much.

“ We're humanitarians. We also have a vested interest in seeing Iraq prosperous, democratic, secular, and stable. Just like the US of A. ”

Make up your mind.

Have I not said this before, SamCDKey?

Already addressed this.

Just because you say it doesn't mean it is so, my dear! I am afraid you did not address this. I am afraid you showed yourself ignorant on the Taliban's horrific treatment of women and the increase in rights and liberties of women in post-Taliban Afghanistan.

You only have your blame to blame for the continuation of anti-women practices in Afghanistan in some areas.

It sucks not to be able to blame the West, doesn't it?

“ Saudi Arabia knows that US support is vital to them. ”

And vice versa.

You are aware of the fact that Osama bin Laden has a great deal of beef with America over its support of Saudi Arabia, yes?

Make up your mind

How have I not made up my mine? Cockroaches are hard to kill when they scurry under the floor boards.

You've been to New York. I'm sure you met at least one cockroach that displayed this behaviour.

Hell, you live in Bombay. You have all sorts of nasty critters there, I'm sure.

Hmm. Has NATO gone home then? Since there is no more Taliban?

Clearly, you are incapable of reading my posts. I said there were a few remenants left.

Cockroaches, remember?

Yeah yeah. Mission accomplished. We are winning the war on terror etc.

I'm glad you agree.

I'm glad you consider illegal immigrants as equal to students.

Considering they are coming in by the millions to try to "attain a better life" (or so their advocates claim)...Well, I guess they aren't too much different than students trying to do the same through education.

Actually its been 3 years from 2003 to 2006

Yippie-yai-yo-kai-yea

Yeah all the "foiled" attacks with surprisingly little evidence. Keeps the threat at orange level though, and Haliburton in Iraq doesn't it?

Actually, the only place in America constantly on orange alert is New York. The rest of America is not.

Orange alert hasn't been called for the nation as a whole for a while.

Also: There is tons of evidence. Do some research on it. Moreover, note the fact that British just recently stopped a terrorist attack, too.

The United States is waging a war on Islamic terrorism. Any nations impacted by Islamic terrorism and who engage with us in this war are held to be part of the greater protection of the United States, as much as that is feasible.

A "war on terror" is a silly concept. It's like declaring a "war on fear" or a "war on unhappiness". You can't win a war on terror. Terror is a tactic, not a substantive enemy.

James R.:

We're fighting a war on Islamic terrorist organizations (aka Islamic terrorism). Not a war on terrorism as a tactic.

Moreover, you are aware that you might as well put the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz as your icon, as that was a delightful strawman?

And I know Americans have low attention spans but could we address the topic instead of my personal life?

thats nice, fair and balanced as usual.

Originally Posted by samcdkey

And I know Americans have low attention spans but could we address the topic instead of my personal life?

Why not? this post to Spurious fits you quite well to, and you do make it difficult to know what you your are saying?

spuriousmonkey, most of the time it is very difficult to know what you are saying because you ignore the FACTS, you ignore the election, you ignore the Authorization of Military Force, you ignore the Cease Fire, and failure of Saddam to follow the Treaty that he signed to stop the U.N. Forces from dismantling his government, The facts are that they have found WMD, the fact is that there is enough proof available to believe that the Russian help Saddam to move his WMD to Syria, you ignore the Fact that the Iraqi's are the main target of the Terrorist, you ignore the fact that as the Common Iraqi is lining up to support his government by volunteering to join the Police Forces, Military, running for Government Office, and Voting in there elections, even though the act get them killed daily by the terrorist, would you have the intestinal fortitude to line back up to be a police cadet?, after a bomb had just turned the registration line into hamburger, or the bus taking people to training is hijacked, and all the trainees are beheaded? Yes it is hard to know what you are saying with all the information you ignore in your pontification.

Haha

Thats a laugh!

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/07/22_lies.html

You kill 600,000 people on the suspicion that someone MAY have a weapon?

Shame on you.

I get the impression that the US killed a few thousand Iraqis on suspicion that Saddam may have had a weapon. Certain Iraqis then killed a few hundred thousand other Iraqis on suspicion that this may get the US to leave. I think they were both wrong...

Certain Iraqis then killed a few hundred thousand other Iraqis on suspicion that this may get the US to leave.
You think they are fighting each other in an attempt to get the US out? The reality is that they are fighting each other for their stake in Iraq. It is a power struggle.

True, none of these groups wants the US present, primarily because the only reason why the US is still there is to influence who gets into power and to build permanent US bases. From the beginning, all the US were concerned about was having a puppet in Iraq to do as they say.

I get the impression that the US killed a few thousand Iraqis on suspicion that Saddam may have had a weapon. Certain Iraqis then killed a few hundred thousand other Iraqis on suspicion that this may get the US to leave. I think they were both wrong...

So if Iraq is plunged into a civil war that goes on for the next 20 years the US is no way responsible for the mess?

The US went into Iraq on a flimsy pretext. They destabilised the country, destroyed the infrastructure and created a power vacuum. They had little knowledge about the people, their background, history, culture, language and no post-war development plan in place. They are playing games with the political structure and may end up with a fundamentalist dictator who will make life miserable for the Iraqi people. They put Iraq in the middle of a tug of war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Right now they are killing innocent civilians because they are trigger happy and expect everyone to be familiar with and follow Western rules and regulations (and possibly speak American English).

They are responsible for every death in Iraq. Period.

So if Iraq is plunged into a civil war that goes on for the next 20 years the US is no way responsible for the mess?
No, they are partially responsible, but the people doing the bulk of the actual killing are also partially (and in my opinion more) responsible for the bulk of the actual deaths.

For that matter I think Al-Queda is also partially responsible (although less than the US), since their actions seem to have destabilised American politics, and the US is partially responsible (although less than Al-Queda) for funding that group, and so on...

They are responsible for every death in Iraq. Period.

What's the matter, Sam, can't you figure out any way to hold the US responsible for every death in the world? Why stop at just Iraqi deaths? Surely you, the Great Hater of the US can find some justification to hate the US even more, can't you? Oh, c'mon, you can do it if you put your mind to it. :D

Baron Max

Sam is just bitter that the U.S. cops wouldn't listen to her song and dance.

Sam is just bitter that the U.S. cops wouldn't listen to her song and dance.

Huh? What cops? What's the story here? Am I missing something about Sam, the Great Hater of the USA?

Baron Max

No, they are partially responsible, but the people doing the bulk of the actual killing are also partially (and in my opinion more) responsible for the bulk of the actual deaths.

For that matter I think Al-Queda is also partially responsible (although less than the US), since their actions seem to have destabilised American politics, and the US is partially responsible (although less than Al-Queda) for funding that group, and so on...

So why is the US still in Iraq?

Huh? What cops? What's the story here? Am I missing something about Sam, the Great Hater of the USA?

Baron Max

How dramatic you are, Baron. I don't hate the US, but I wouldn't want them to come to my country with their exported democracy, any more than you would want Libya to come to your country with Gadafi's superior democracy.:D

samcdkey, dumb question Sam the war isn't over, the terrorist won't let it be over,and Iraq isn't ready to defend itself from a terrorist take over alla Afghanistan.

So why is the US still in Iraq?

You cna't figure that out, Sam? Duh!

Baron Max

I don't hate the US, but I wouldn't want them to come to my country with their exported democracy, ...

I don't think we've invaded India, have we??? Private companies of the US are exploiting the poor Indians by giving them a few jobs, but the US military ain't invaded yet, have they?

Or is it, perhaps, that you feel that you should stand up for all other people in the world ....by spreading your hatred of the US?

And if that's not true, then why are you not spreading the same kind of hatred for any and all nations that are "causing" problems with other nations? I.e., why are you not railing against, say, Ethiopia and Somalia, among the many others in the world who are killing other people?

Why narrow your hatred to only the US, Sam???

Baron Max

samcdkey, dumb question Sam the war isn't over, the terrorist won't let it be over,and Iraq isn't ready to defend itself from a terrorist take over alla Afghanistan.

So how do the US soldiers know who the terrorists are? How do they distinguish between militants and civilians? Who are they fighting in Iraq? How do they expect to control the terrorism? On what basis are they going to decide the war is won?

I don't think we've invaded India, have we??? Private companies of the US are exploiting the poor Indians by giving them a few jobs, but the US military ain't invaded yet, have they?

Or is it, perhaps, that you feel that you should stand up for all other people in the world ....by spreading your hatred of the US?

And if that's not true, then why are you not spreading the same kind of hatred for any and all nations that are "causing" problems with other nations? I.e., why are you not railing against, say, Ethiopia and Somalia, among the many others in the world who are killing other people?

Why narrow your hatred to only the US, Sam???

Baron Max

Ethiopia and Somalia (http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=831732006)? Where GWB is sending money to warlords (http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-476/_nr-196/i.html) that massacre civilians? Forcing the people to turn to fundamentalists who are the only ones helping the people? I could go into details (http://the-american-interest.com/contd/?p=577) if you like. :rolleyes:

So how do the US soldiers know who the terrorists are? How do they distinguish between militants and civilians?

The terrorists are the ones holding the guns and explosives!

On what basis are they going to decide the war is won?

When the Iraqis can protect themselves from the murderers and criminals. To leave them now would be the same as the New York City police force to leave NYC. Even you wouldn't do that, would you, Sam?

Baron Max

if america were to live iraq it will play to the hands of iran.

The terrorists are the ones holding the guns and explosives!

When the Iraqis can protect themselves from the murderers and criminals. To leave them now would be the same as the New York City police force to leave NYC. Even you wouldn't do that, would you, Sam?

Baron Max

You do know that Iraqis don't believe in gun control, Baron, right?

That all of them reserve the right to protect themselves, seeing as they lived in a country under a dictator.

btw I like the circular logic. The Iraqis with guns are terrorists and the US won't leave until the Iraqis can protect themselves. With what? Bells and whistles? I suppose the minute they pick up a gun to "protect themselves" they become terrorists.
If you had a gun in your hand, does that make you a terrorist Baron?

if america were to live iraq it will play to the hands of iran.


They left Iraq in the hands of Iran the minute they invaded Iraq.

if america were to live iraq it will play to the hands of iran.

Sam doesn't understand anything about international politics ...she's strictly a reader and believer of off-the-cuff "news", and in particularly, anything that makes the USA and Israel look bad ..not matter what it is!

the way she/he pulls up shit from the 'Net, I have to assume that she/he has a gazillion such opinionated articles that she could post here for years without ever making any comments of her/his own. She's like a parrot ...she only "parrots" what others have taught her/him.

Baron Max

She's like a parrot ...she only "parrots" what others have taught her/him.

Baron Max

And you base your opinions on?

They left Iraq in the hands of Iran the minute they invaded Iraq.

maybe thats true. the real enemy here is iran. today there is no doubt about that.

You do know that Iraqis don't believe in gun control, Baron, right?

To leave Iraq now would be the same as the New York City police force to leave NYC. Even you wouldn't do that, would you, Sam?

Baron Max

She's like a parrot ...she only "parrots" what others have taught her/him.

Baron Max

LOL

They left Iraq in the hands of Iran the minute they invaded Iraq.

Have we already left Iraq??? I didn't know that! Thanks, Spurious.

Baron Max

To leave Iraq now would be the same as the New York City police force to leave NYC. Even you wouldn't do that, would you, Sam?

Baron Max

Tell me Baron, if your country was occupied by a foreign force and a fullscale civil war was going on, with one side helping the occupation force that wanted to control your government and the resources of your country and the other side fighting for autonomy, which side would you be on?

Sam doesn't understand anything about international politics ...she's strictly a reader and believer of off-the-cuff "news", and in particularly, anything that makes the USA and Israel look bad ..not matter what it is!

Oh dear Max,

did you just say Sam doesn't understand international politics? Are you not an american? A citizen of a country which did the impossible of losing the moral support of their fight against terrorism after 9/11 by implementing the worst foreign policy imaginable?

Oh how we mocked the US in the rest of the world.

And then you invaded Iraq for bogus reasons and lost whatever credibility the US had in their fight against terrorism. Moreover, you created a hotbed for terrorists. A training ground for terrorists. And a civil war.

The war in iraq was declared over in 2003. And you are still there. And still you pretend you know something about international politics? The US government which managed to alienate the French within 2 seconds after 9/11. Tell me it isn't true dear Max. That I have misread you.

Have we already left Iraq??? I didn't know that! Thanks, Spurious.

Baron Max

I hope you do understand English. Apparently not.

And you base your opinions on?

I don't have any opinions, Sam! :D

And if I did, I'd be just as quick to change my mind with any new information I might come across.

When I was young, I had strong opinions about most everything ...I was right-er than anyone else, young and old! When I was young, I knew every-fuckin'-thing, but now that I'm old, I see that, not only didn't I know anything, but I'm seeing that I know less and less as I get older and older.

Baron Max

I don't have any opinions, Sam! :D

And if I did, I'd be just as quick to change my mind with any new information I might come across.

When I was young, I had strong opinions about most everything ...I was right-er than anyone else, young and old! When I was young, I knew every-fuckin'-thing, but now that I'm old, I see that, not only didn't I know anything, but I'm seeing that I know less and less as I get older and older.

Baron Max

How come you always have an opinion when you don't?

Oh dear Max, ... Are you not an american? A citizen of a country which did the impossible of losing the moral support...

Losing the moral support? Didn't the citizens of the US re-elect President Bush to a second term in office? Didn't the congress vote overwhelmingly to go to war in Iraq? Isn't the congress continuing to support the war by funding the military budgets? ..... That same country? Yeah, I'm a citizen, and damned proud of it, too.

Baron Max

I don't have any opinions, Sam! :D

And if I did, I'd be just as quick to change my mind with any new information I might come across.

When I was young, I had strong opinions about most everything ...I was right-er than anyone else, young and old! When I was young, I knew every-fuckin'-thing, but now that I'm old, I see that, not only didn't I know anything, but I'm seeing that I know less and less as I get older and older.

Baron Max

Are you afraid to take a stand Baron? Why?

You have a right to your opinion as much as anyone else.

How come you always have an opinion when you don't?

I usually just say what's on my mind at the moment, Spurious, I don't think that that's called an "opinion", is it? In one post, I might be hateful of poor people; but in the very next, after I read someone else's post, I might have sympathy and compassion for the poor. Oh, wait, no I don't!! ...LOL!

Baron Max

Losing the moral support? Didn't the citizens of the US re-elect President Bush to a second term in office? Didn't the congress vote overwhelmingly to go to war in Iraq? Isn't the congress continuing to support the war by funding the military budgets? ..... That same country? Yeah, I'm a citizen, and damned proud of it, too.

Baron Max


I wasn't talking about americans. I was talking about 6 billion other people. I wasn't really expecting Bush not being re-elected with all the moneyhe pumped into his campaign. America is for sale after all.

Like me he waits for the full story, and then makes a judgment as to the fact with the information that is available, and will change his opinions when new provable fact enter the equation.

Are you afraid to take a stand Baron? Why?

You have a right to your opinion as much as anyone else.

Unlike all of you, I don't know enough. I read one article that says 'X' is bad, then I read another that says 'X' is good ...and both articles are written by equally prominent, knowledgeable people.

No, Sam, I can't have an opinion because I don't know enough about the truth of anything that's goiing on in the world, or even the nation, for that matter.

What y'all do is, I think, jump to conclusions ....like I did when I was a kid. Y'all call that an "opinion", but it's really just a sure sign of youth ...who want things that they wnat and they want it NOW!! So, like everything else, they're quick to judge ....even without full info or knowledge about it.

Baron Max

spuriousmonkey
I wasn't talking about americans. I was talking about 6 billion other people. I wasn't really expecting Bush not being re-elected with all the moneyhe pumped into his campaign. America is for sale after all.

A mind reader extraordinary, that our spurious, and why should we take their opinion in to account, it is our interest that we need to worry about, not the rest of the world.

I wasn't talking about americans. I was talking about 6 billion other people. I wasn't really expecting Bush not being re-elected with all the moneyhe pumped into his campaign. America is for sale after all.

goerge bush is a far better president then bil klinton ever was. ha had the huts to fight terror, and is doing what he think is best for america. at least hes not like jimmy carter who supported the taliban, or reigen who supported iran.

you might not be happy with the war in iraq, but iraq was a breeding ground to terror before the us entered there. its just wasnt the main source.

Unlike all of you, I don't know enough. I read one article that says 'X' is bad, then I read another that says 'X' is good ...and both articles are written by equally prominent, knowledgeable people.

No, Sam, I can't have an opinion because I don't know enough about the truth of anything that's goiing on in the world, or even the nation, for that matter.

What y'all do is, I think, jump to conclusions ....like I did when I was a kid. Y'all call that an "opinion", but it's really just a sure sign of youth ...who want things that they wnat and they want it NOW!! So, like everything else, they're quick to judge ....even without full info or knowledge about it.

Baron Max

That would be true when I was younger. Now after travelling to some of the places involved, meeting people who represent both points of view and observing how people are demonised for financial gain, plus observing the differences in cultural outlook, I have more faith in my opinions.

Its nice to have an open mind Baron, but not so open that your brains fall out.:)

The world is really simple, Baron, all you have to do is "follow the money".

spuriousmonkey


A mind reader extraordinary, that our spurious, and why should we take their opinion in to account, it is our interest that we need to worry about, not the rest of the world.

I think your problem is that you can only think of a problem from the american viewpoint. That's why americans suck at interpreting foreign politics. They can't. They think everyone is the same: an american.

When a topic is discussed they automatically think it is about the US.

Feel free to blame me for your limited scope on the world.

That would be true when I was younger. Now after travelling to some of the places involved, meeting people who represent both points of view .....

What about the views of the people you didn't meet? Aren't you forgetting them and their views? Surely you didn't meet personally every man, woman and child in the world ....all gazillion of them? C'mon, Sam, your narrow personal experiences are nothing but a drop in the bucket in the complexities of the world.

Its nice to have an open mind Baron, but not so open that your brains fall out.

I've been told that I don't have any, so I don't worry too much about it.

Follow the money? No, Sam, that only tells you where the money went or is going, not the final intended purpose or hope.

I would also caution you that that kind of view doesn't take into account the changes that occur in the world overnight. At one moment, someone or some government might be a friend; but the very next day, things go to shit. No, Sam, you know as well as me that nothing is so simple in the world. and if you think so, then you're pretty damned gullible.

Baron Max

And what should our focus be, I'm sorry, the but our governments focus should ultimately be our interest first, last, and always, or they are not doing their job for the people who elected them, and in the end it is you who has a the limited scope of the world, you seem to always believe the negative and find a way to make the problems of the world our fault, you forget that there are 193 other countries in the world and all of them are trying to serve their interest first, last, and always, that is their responsibility to their citizens, we don't do anything different than the other 193 countries, we just have the ability to do it better.

we don't do anything different than the other 193 countries, we just have the ability to do it better.

Haha!:D

OBL?

WMDs?

Iraq?


2001:
http://www.michigandaily.com/media/storage/paper851/news/2001/10/10/News/Americans.Feel.Less.Safe.After.Attacks-1407157.shtml?norewrite200701051512&sourcedomain=www.michigandaily.com
Americans feel less safe after attacks

Most Say They Are Not Safer Since 9/11
By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 1, 2004; Page A03



Sep 6, 2006 9:44 pm US/Central
Poll: Many Americans Feel Less Safe

But have we had another attack? under Pres.Bush's watch, can you show were we have failed to protect the Country under the Republicans, we have the record as of now under the Republicans, now that the democrats are in charge lets see if they can keep up the good work? I'm betting not.

There has been:

You forget the stated purpose of the terrorists:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/archive/archive?ArchiveId=7403
All that we have mentioned has made it easy for us to provoke and bait this administration. All that we have to do is to send two mujahidin to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaida, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy...

What do you think? Is there a terrorist attack on the US right now?

What percent of the GNP do you think is taken up by the War? It isn't even 1%, it isn't even a minority of the defense budget.

What percent of the GNP do you think is taken up by the War? It isn't even 1%, it isn't even a minority of the defense budget.

What is the current debt of the US?

SamCDKey:

You still haven't clarified your positions. Why this cowardice?

SamCDKey: You still haven't clarified your positions. Why this cowardice?

Oh, c'mon, Prince James, you know her positions by this time! If not, then you ain't been payin' attention to her posts.

Baron Max

SamCDKey:

You still haven't clarified your positions. Why this cowardice?

What positions? Do I support terrorists? No.

However my definition includes all those who use terror against civilians for their gains, which includes not only suicide bombers and militants, but also countries steeped in hubris (like colonial Britain was and the US is). The difference I make is that I believe in the right of every person to defend their country, especially when occupied and even from a dictator, because I have a legacy of 200 hundred years of occupation in my own country and I know exactly what it means. A slave by any other name...

What positions? Do I support terrorists? No.

However my definition includes ...., but also countries steeped in hubris.

Sam, Sam, Sam! Soveriegn nations can't be terrorists! What the fuck's wrong with you?

The difference I make is that I believe in the right of every person to defend their country, ...

So it's okay for a few radical people to take up arms against their own countrymen .....if they think that things need defending?? Where do they get the right or authority to make that decision for all of their people?

Baron Max

Sam, Sam, Sam! Soveriegn nations can't be terrorists! What the fuck's wrong with you?

So it's okay for a few radical people to take up arms against their own countrymen .....if they think that things need defending?? Where do they get the right or authority to make that decision for all of their people?

Baron Max

Sure they can, we had one occupying us for 200 years.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2005/12/27/how-britain-denies-its-holocausts/
In his book Late Victorian Holocausts, published in 2001, Mike Davis tells the story of the famines which killed between 12 and 29 million Indians(1). These people were, he demonstrates, murdered by British state policy.

When an El Nino drought destituted the farmers of the Deccan plateau in 1876 there was a net surplus of rice and wheat in India. But the viceroy, Lord Lytton, insisted that nothing should prevent its export to England. In 1877 and 1878, at height of the famine, grain merchants exported a record 6.4 million hundredweight of wheat. As the peasants began to starve, government officials were ordered “to discourage relief works in every possible way”(2). The Anti-Charitable Contributions Act of 1877 prohibited “at the pain of imprisonment private relief donations that potentially interfered with the market fixing of grain prices.” The only relief permitted in most districts was hard labour, from which anyone in an advanced state of starvation was turned away. Within the labour camps, the workers were given less food than the inmates of Buchenwald. In 1877, monthly mortality in the camps equated to an annual death rate of 94%.

American.
Civil.
War.

Sure they can, we had one occupying us for 200 years.

So just a few violent radicals saved India? ...by killing and maiming a bunch of innocent Indians?

American. Civil. War.

Confederate States of America ...declared soveriegn nation, with a charter and a constitution. They declared a legal document to sever relations with the Union ...and wholly legal and upstanding event in history.

There was no "few violent radicals" fighting a terrorists conflict, Sam. It was an entire half of the nation, and it was a recognized, legal secession.

Baron Max

So just a few violent radicals saved India? ...by killing and maiming a bunch of innocent Indians?



Confederate States of America ...declared soveriegn nation, with a charter and a constitution. They declared a legal document to sever relations with the Union ...and wholly legal and upstanding event in history.

There was no "few violent radicals" fighting a terrorists conflict, Sam. It was an entire half of the nation, and it was a recognized, legal secession.

Baron Max

Sure, but I bet it began with a few radicals, just like our fight for freedom did.

Sure, but I bet it began with a few radicals, just like our fight for freedom did.

Nope, sure didn't. Check the history books, Sam. The American civil war began in the congress of the United States! Among statesman, Sam, not a few violent, radicals killing and murdering other Americans.

I'd also remind you that both the north and the south wore uniforms (where they could afford it!), and they marched as soldiers, not as vicious, nasty terrorists who kill innocent women and children! Even the few of those that occured, it was viewed on both sides as criminal acts, not acts of war.

Baron Max

Nope, sure didn't. Check the history books, Sam. The American civil war began in the congress of the United States! Among statesman, Sam, not a few violent, radicals killing and murdering other Americans.

I'd also remind you that both the north and the south wore uniforms (where they could afford it!), and they marched as soldiers, not as vicious, nasty terrorists who kill innocent women and children! Even the few of those that occured, it was viewed on both sides as criminal acts, not acts of war.

Baron Max

And Jefferson had kids with his black slave lover.

Amazing all the stuff they never put down isn't it?

NOTE: deaths listed include being killed in action and/or of other causes such as dying of disease, starvation, exposure, drought, drowning, friendly fire, atrocities etc.

Too bad we can't go back in time and see all they did or did not do.:rolleyes:

How many people die in that war, Baron? All men was it?

And Jefferson had kids with his black slave lover.

Amazing all the stuff they never put down isn't it?

Yeah, Sam, I'm sorry. I forgot about the terrorist activities of Jefferson falling in love with a black woman. Yep, that constitutes terrorism in the worst of ways ...worse even than the 9/11 event. Thanks ...I'd forgotten all about that horrid, terrible, vicious event.

Baron Max

SamCDKey:

Although you've said you don't support terrorism, I'll repost my exact questions to get your answer to each:

Tell me, SamCDKey, what is your take on Osama bin Laden?

Do you support the murder of civilians by terrorists? (covered partially? But what about cases where they are "fighting the occupiers"?)

Moreover, do you not think the United States has an obligation to her citizens to protect them against against the threats to them and to the interests of the nation as a whole?

Also, I'll add this:

If occupation is wrong, why are you a Moslem? The Mughals conquered India, just as the British did. You claim the British were occupiers and this was negative.

Back home? I guess we'll never have that dance.

No wonder the world sucks.

Water and oil are just water and oil without salad.

SamCDKey:

Although you've said you don't support terrorism, I'll repost my exact questions to get your answer to each:

Tell me, SamCDKey, what is your take on Osama bin Laden?

Do you support the murder of civilians by terrorists? (covered partially? But what about cases where they are "fighting the occupiers"?)

Moreover, do you not think the United States has an obligation to her citizens to protect them against against the threats to them and to the interests of the nation as a whole?

Also, I'll add this:

If occupation is wrong, why are you a Moslem? The Mughals conquered India, just as the British did. You claim the British were occupiers and this was negative.


Tell me Prince what is the necessity for me to answer any of your questions?

1. Osama bin laden? He's a terrorist. So why would any right thinking Muslim, including me support him? I don't.

2. Murder of civilians by terrorists. I don't support it, whether its a suicide bomber in Israel or the IDF in Gaza, or Hitler in Germany or the US in Iraq.

3. The US has an obligation to it's citizens yes. So what does the war in Iraq have to do with it?

A parallel hypothetical situation. Israel announces that it can stop Iran's nuclear problem by using missile strikes. Iran claims it needs the nuclear program as it has signed the NPT and has a right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Israel has not signed the NPT and possesses nuclear weapons anyway. Lets pretend for a moment that the US does not exist.

Do you believe that Iran can claim that Israel's announcement constitutes a threat since it possesses WMDs and has announced a willingness to conduct a military strike as an excuse for a pre emptive strike into Israel? Is that a valid reason for Iran to attack Israel?

Now if Iran attacks Israel and "helps" the Palestinians to gain power (the Palestinians having been suppressed under Israel) and the Israelis fight back leading to large scale civil war, who is responsible? Is it Iran, Israel or Palestine?

Now substitute US for Iran, Israel for Iraq and Palestine for the suppressed Iraqis, and you have the current situation in Iraq.

Is this a just honorable war? And we haven't even included the oil contracts given with no contest to Haliburton.

And if its not the war you're referring to, does the US do its citizens a favor by supporting dictators, destabilising countries for its personal gain and supporting covert death squads that topple democratic or popular regimes? Does not the US stand for liberty truth and justice? How then can it justify doing the reverse? Do Americans feel proud when they hear about these "accomplishments"?


4. What does Islam in India have to do with the Mughals? Islam came to India with Arab traders in the lifetime of the Prophet in about 630 AD, especially on the West Coast from where I am. The Mughals did not come to India until the 16th century. Even then there were no Mughals on the West, South and East Coasts of India. The Mughal Empire was all over the North and North West of India, where the population until today is almost all Hindu. The Muslims in India are almost all on the sea coasts and are descendants of Arab traders who immigrated and assimilated with the local population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India

Anyway the Mughals were not occupiers any more than Americans are occupiers, the initial Mughal Babur was an invader (in 1526) who fought and defeated a Muslim king, the Sultan of Delhi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delhi_Sultanate), Ibrahim Lodhi. The Mughals then are those Mongols (Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol) who moved to India and became assimilated with the population. Under them India became the Star of the East and had one-third to one-fourth of the world's wealth. They used the Grand Trunk road, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Trunk_Road), built by another Pashtun (Afghani, which at that time was also part of India) Muslim king Sher Shah Suri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sher_Shah_Suri), which opened up trade for India from Arabia to Indonesia. Parts of that road are still in use today. They also helped Indian culture to flourish and exported it over Arabia and added their own distinctive contribution to the literature, architecture and culture of the country.

That is a far cry from the British who lumped all Indians into Muslims and Hindus, followed a policy of divide and rule and stripped India of its wealth and glory. Under them India was transformed from a rich and highly progressive nation to a poor Third world country. There is no comparison.

PS Prince, you've asked me these questions numerous times. This time I have given you as detailed and exhaustive an answer as possible. Please print out this post and stick it in a visible place.

Thanks,

Sam:p

Back home? I guess we'll never have that dance.

No wonder the world sucks.

Water and oil are just water and oil without salad.

Faint heart Mr. G?:p

So why is the US still in Iraq?

http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200505/26/eng20050526_186922.html ?

you might not be happy with the war in iraq, but iraq was a breeding ground to terror before the us entered there. its just wasnt the main source.

Hello predator,

really, are you referring to Alqueda which saddam would call terrorist and were one of the biggest threats to his regime or are you talking about other groups saddam would call terrorirst like the various kurdish movements.

I agree their were probably Kurdish groups in Northern Iraq which saddam would have called terrorist but these were being protected by the no fly zones etc..as for Alqueda type groups pls post the evidence

i assume you have proof of this statement, if so i am intrigued and want to learn how Baathist saddam allowed them to operate in Iraq

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
take care
zak

Funny that still nobody is complaining about the Turkish killing off Kurds.

Funny that still nobody is complaining about the Turkish killing off Kurds.

If the major news agencies don't carry it or make it a big issue, then no one gives a fuck!

Sam-o with Darfur and Somlia and central Africa and Chechnya and Cambodia and Thailand and Tibet and ...well, you get the point.

There's major conflicts and problems all over the world, yet if the news doesn't carry it or make it a big issue, then no one cares or complains.

Baron Max

SamCDKey:

Tell me Prince what is the necessity for me to answer any of your questions?

It is merely a way to vindicate -yourself-. I think you'd like it on the record exactly where you stand.

If you don't want to answer, don't. We'll draw our own conclusions.

1. Osama bin laden? He's a terrorist. So why would any right thinking Muslim, including me support him? I don't.

Glad to hear it.

2. Murder of civilians by terrorists. I don't support it, whether its a suicide bomber in Israel or the IDF in Gaza, or Hitler in Germany or the US in Iraq.

Wonderful. So do you have deep seated problems with the Iraqi insurgency? And do you think America practices a campaign of civilian killing as part of the war plan?

3. The US has an obligation to it's citizens yes. So what does the war in Iraq have to do with it?

You do realize that Saddam Hussein was constantly bucking against America and the world and attempted to assassinate a former president, yes?

Do you think Afghanistan was/is a legitimate war fought by America and NATO?

Do you believe that Iran can claim that Israel's announcement constitutes a threat since it possesses WMDs and has announced a willingness to conduct a military strike as an excuse for a pre emptive strike into Israel? Is that a valid reason for Iran to attack Israel?

With nuclear or conventional arms?

With nuclear arms: No.

With conventional arms: Yes.

Now if Iran attacks Israel and "helps" the Palestinians to gain power (the Palestinians having been suppressed under Israel) and the Israelis fight back leading to large scale civil war, who is responsible? Is it Iran, Israel or Palestine?

75 percent Israel, 25 percent Iran.

Is this a just honorable war? And we haven't even included the oil contracts given with no contest to Haliburton.

And which they've made virtually no profit off of.

And yes, I think it just to attack the neighbour that threatens you. Or the country across the world.

And if its not the war you're referring to, does the US do its citizens a favor by supporting dictators, destabilising countries for its personal gain and supporting covert death squads that topple democratic or popular regimes? Does not the US stand for liberty truth and justice? How then can it justify doing the reverse? Do Americans feel proud when they hear about these "accomplishments"?

Yes, I do. Especially the anti-Communists ones. I support Fascism 100 percent more than Communism, whatever the price.

A dictator can indeed be a friend and better than the alternative. Destablizing countries, also, is not something the United States routinely does.

4. What does Islam in India have to do with the Mughals? Islam came to India with Arab traders in the lifetime of the Prophet in about 630 AD, especially on the West Coast from where I am. The Mughals did not come to India until the 16th century. Even then there were no Mughals on the West, South and East Coasts of India. The Mughal Empire was all over the North and North West of India, where the population until today is almost all Hindu. The Muslims in India are almost all on the sea coasts and are descendants of Arab traders who immigrated and assimilated with the local population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_in_India

You will note that that aside from merely Arab traders, the Islamic spread in India, as mentioned even in that article, coincided with successive waves of invasions. HOwever, you are correct that I perhaps over spoke the significance of simply the Mughals. The Delhi Sultanate was one of the first forays into India by Moslem aggressors.

Anyway: I would think you'd have to reconcile your religion with the sins of the people who brought it, if you consider British and American occupations of nations to be morally wrong.

Anyway the Mughals were not occupiers, the initial Mughal Babur was an invader (in 1526) who fought and defeated a Muslim king, the Sultan of Delhi, Ibrahim Lodhi. The Mughals then are those Mongols (Mughal is the Persian word for Mongol) who moved to India and became assimilated with the population. Under them India became the Star of the East and had one-third to one-fourth of the world's wealth. They used the Grand Trunk road,, built by another Pashtun (Afghani, which at that time was also part of India) Muslim king Sher Shah Suri, which opened up trade for India from Arabia to Indonesia. Parts of that road are still in use today. They also helped Indian culture to flourish and exported it over Arabia and added their own distinctive contribution to the literature, architecture and culture of the country.

So apparently you would be fine with occupations by the British if they included more of their culture into India?

If Kipling wrote one more book like "Kim" you would be fine with him? (By the way: Excellent book).

SamCDKey:

It is merely a way to vindicate -yourself-. I think you'd like it on the record exactly whe