OT Bush calls Lebanon A new front for global war on terror

[subterFUSE]

I really think you would find it interesting and entertaining.

Looks interesting. Will check it out. Anything that makes fun of religion is right up my alley.

[Pitch Black]

I really think you would find it interesting and entertaining.

Looks interesting. Will check it out. Anything that makes fun of religion is right up my alley.

And rent Wag the Dog for afters

[subterFUSE]

Benshik.... I liked that article. Funny, and a lot of good points.

[subterFUSE]

And rent Wag the Dog for afters

I will.


I like Dustin Hoffman and Bob DeNiro, anyway.

[noisetonepause]

There is no God. People need to just accept it.... just like people had to accept that the world isn't flat, or that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, or that gravity is a constant.

You're a fucking cunt.

[noisetonepause]

@ Paws

a Danish girl studying here in Moscow once sent me that link:
http://www.exile.ru/2006-February-10/ar ... danes.html

its an article about Denmark written by some American alternative journalist. Its very biaised not to say "caricatural", but that girl was like "finally people write about us"
I'd be interested to know what you think...

do you think there is some truth in it?

Who the fuck is that idiot? That has to be one of the most retarded things I've ever read.

[djadonis206]

Terrorist are just angry people - you could have a perfect world and still someone will be mad enough to do some dirt - green, purple, black, white, muslim, jew, christian etc

Some human beings are just angry

[subterFUSE]

Some human beings are just angry

Thats true.... although many terrorist attacks are carried out through suicide.... which is justified to them by the expectation of rewards in the afterlife. But what if they didn't believe in an afterlife? We'd see fewer suicide attacks, for sure.

[subterFUSE]

You're a fucking cunt.

Is that what this smell is? Was trying to figure that out.

[ethios4]

Historically, Buddhist empires have been as violent as any other.
...
And it's hardly fair to call Abrahamic religions the biggest culprits. Like everything else (well, everything that doesn't come from China), the suicide bomb came from India...

People are the problem.

-Paws

Word up Paws!!

Religion is not the problem, people are. People who try to force their beliefs on other by saying things like "Christ is lord, accept it".

Not to point out the obvious, but you just completely contradicted yourself! Atheism is a "religion" just like any other. It's the expression of a worldview. But that's for another thread...

I agree...people are the problem. Or more accurately, the problem lies in the heart of a person.

[stinky]

Religion is the problem.

There is no God. People need to just accept it.... just like people had to accept that the world isn't flat, or that the Earth is not the center of the Universe, or that gravity is a constant.

Clinging to these ridiculous beliefs does nothing but isolate peoples and give justification for war and genocide.

Take away religion, and suddenly these conflicts which have raged for millinia really seem stupid, don't they?

that's a very arrogant statement to make. First, it may be true in *your* mind, but there's no way to say for sure that there is or isn't a god. Humans have been grappling with this notion of god(s) since the dawn of man, and just because we are more technologically capable of (re)creating our own environment, doesn't make g-d any less dead than it makes us g-d.

Second, telling people what they should or shouldn't believe smacks of totalitarianism, communism, and any other negative ism you can think of. What gives you the right to say what people should or shouldn't believe.

Then, there's this.. I once knew i guy that said he was Jesus... granted he did one too many hits of acid at the time and went to a very nice padded cell, but that brings me to my other friend... he was sane (relatively) and told me that he believed he was g-d because everything that happens is created in his mind, so he must be g-d. Of course, i told him he was crazy, but he didn't believe me. My point is this, noone knows, and noone has the right to force his beliefs on others. You're just as guilty as any imam is for trying to force your beliefs on others. And, you could never do it anyways, if you tried. There would always be pockets of resistance.

I think your whole view on life is pretty narrowminded. At the same time, I agree that we can't stand idly by while people throw their wieght around trying to change our world to be more repressive. Personally, I think Bush is just as guilty of that as Bin-Laden.

[rtopia]

I think Bush is just as guilty of that as Bin-Laden.

rtopia momentarily fantasizes of a world where people like Bin Laden could be stopped simply by voting THEM out of office

- r

[stinky]

I think Bush is just as guilty of that as Bin-Laden.

rtopia momentarily fantasizes of a world where people like Bin Laden could be stopped simply by voting THEM out of office

- r

The fact the bush got voted into office is debateble... Also, keep in mind that it's not just the man but the party... It's also nice to know that we like to vote our candidates in simply by name-sake... Still waiting for Jeb Bush to announce his candidacy for office of president... maybe not this time, but Bush III is right around the corner, make no mistake..

[Machinesworking]

Religion is not the problem, people are.

I was going to point that out. Always blamed religion when I was young, but Stalin wasn't religious.

As if our desire to have a group, to belong, is out of control, and we want everybody to think like we do.

[ethios4]

Ethios.... don't take this the wrong way... I'm not being sarcastic or anything. Just help me understand your viewpoint.

I appreciate you respect.

I am not suggesting an immediate pullout of occupied territories, or trading support for Palestine to the exclusion of supporting Israel. I'm suggesting supporting a foreign policy based on truth and righteousness without prejudice. The fact is that Israel's foundation is pretty shady, no doubt. That basic fact must be taken into consideration. The lands gained in 1967 are also questionable. The deals with Palestine that Israel has been open to are not even remotely fair to Palestine. I'd say that from a Palestinian perspective, Israel would like to see them wiped off the map. I believe it is to the benefit of the people of Israel and the US to adopt a fair foreign policy based on a win/win philosophy. Israel should be willing to sede lands fairly for the creation of a Palestinian state. Israel should not continue airstrikes after agreeing to a treaty with Lebanon, even under the justification of "disrupting arms smuggling".

That being said I think it is clear that Israel has a right to exist, and the right to be free from violence and oppression, just as the people of Lebanon and Palestine have such a right. The fact of violently anti-semitic beliefs motivating many leaders is very disturbing...that sort of philosophy is entirely unacceptable. I do believe that hatred is much easier to arouse in a people when they are in misery from poverty and oppression.

I do not think these things would immediately bring an end to the violence, and I recognize that there is hatred that cannot be extinguished by appeasement. However, I believe it is to the benefit of the peoples of Israel and the US to adopt a foreign policy that it's citizens and the citizens of the world can look at and see as being exemplary, compassionate, fair, and humble. In my opinion that would go a long way towards creating an environment for peace to take hold. That is not to say Israel or the US should not defend themselves when necessary, and I think Israel is to be commended for dropping leaflets warning Lebanese citizens of impending bombings....but is also the nature of asymmetric warfare that Hezbollah will not do the same.

I am not suggesting the US pull out of Iraq. We should never have started that war, but now that we are there pulling out immediately would be disasterous. However, I think our approach to rehabilitating Iraq has been dismal at best, and reflects either gross incompetence or darker ulterior motives in being there. Massive corruption is not the domain of the UN alone....a casual look at the situation in Iraq reveals massive waste of taxpayer money, and disregard for the living conditions of the people of Iraq - with few consequences for those responsible. The fact is that all through the 90's, and leading up to the war, both administrations were advised that sanctions were increasing the suffering of the Iraqi people, and increasing their dependance on Saddam's regime, and that sanctions were doing nothing to better the situation there, and in fact making it worse. Did anyone listen? No.

As for the UN, it is not be perfect but a think a lot of the blame for that lies on the US. If the US truly supported the UN and worked to make it function better, the UN would be much more effective. At this point the UN is hamstrung by the US anytime it deviates from US foreign policy. The US and Israel do everything they can to make the UN an instrument of their own devices rather than accepting the UN as a legitimate body enforcing international law. To me, supporting the enforcement of international law is one of the best ways of securing peace in the world, even though this will not always be to the benefit of the US or Israel.

I ask this? What is the definition of terrorism? I challenge you to define it in such a way that does not make exlusive allowances for Israeli or US aggression. What is the US's official definition of terrorism?

All this being said, I want to say that I greatly value these discussions on the forum. It helps me to better understand my own views, and see where my reasoning is not solid. Thanks to everyone that contributes to these threads that go around and around. In particular, this post of Monty Breqs...

I see that ultimately, the difference between your position and mine is this;

1. One side thinks that a global conflict between Islam and the West is inevitable, unavoidable, and will only end once massive casualties have been inflicted. We see the appeasement of the 1930s as the model, and to hold back our mlitary response only deferrs the inevitable. The longer we wait, the worse the conflict will be, thus costing more lives as our enemies get better technology and are continuously emboldened by our vascilating response. Negotiated resolutions are only temporary pauses, which our enemies will use to rearm, train, equip and plot.

2. The other side sees a a global conflict between Islam and the West as avoidable, and believe that with different foreign policy, we could peacefully coexist. The historical precedent of appeasement as either irrelevant, or not applicable to the current situation. The longer we fight, the more lives will be lost, and that we should cease immediately regardless of the consequences to our own stability. These people think that negotiated resolutions will be honoured by the radicals who believe killing infidels gets them into Paradise.

I side with the first view. I think that we would be at greater risk if we did nothing... It would be a longer-term risk, and with the second view we might achieve a measure of piece for a short period, but at what cost to the future?

I think that the cost to the future would be the end of humanity. We must deal with the problem of Jihadist aggression decisively before they outgun us.

Each year we wait, they catch up technologically. Each year the price of oil goes up, they become richer. Each year that more of their children are indoctrinated to kill and hate the Kuffar, they grow in numbers.

Appeasement and pacificsm are suicide.