Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Dec 3, 2005.
It's only a matter of time...
How can you have a victory when there is no war?
We arent fighting a Nation, though he spun that into the equation we are fighting Extreme Islam. I hope this doesnt mean the typical Chant coming out off this administration. Here comes the next Chant, god i hate those Mantras this administration forces on us. WMD's, Fight them there not here.
We had our Victory in Iraq, now its up to the people but let face it extreme Islam flourishes in that part of the world. Fanatics who hate more then they love. I wish Iraq well but untill extreme Islam is wiped off this planet............I wonder how the president expects to do that? You cant not with all the islam loving nations so here we are. Now we will hear the victory chant for the 2nd time from Bush & Gang.
I hope you're joking. This is Islam's Crusade. This is going to take a while.
Blow them ALL up, every Muslim in that part of the world. Some actually believe this is a viable option.
This is not "Islam's Crusade". Besides the term itself being completely nonsensical, nobody in Iraq was "crusading" for anything until the US Army turned up.
You had to ask. I'm not sure I want to know.
We might as well know what we're up against...
Its what it boils down to at the moment. Now how does George plan to win the War on Extreme Islam?
As if we don't already?
Firstly, how can you possibly think this isn't a war? Just because Congress hasn't "declared" it to be so? If it looks, smells and tastes like ****, then it must be ****.
And let me be more clear here; I wasn't speaking strictly about Iraq. Unfortunately, it got swept up into a broader mess in the region.
I have a difficult time believing that there isn't an exceptionally strong Islamic influence in the insurgency, and I would argue that the vast majority of the Iraq insurgency believes that nothing less than a strong Islamic government is acceptable. In fact, when non-Muslims are beheaded and a conspicuously Christian nation is attacked in the name of Allah, and when terms such as "Jihad" and "Zionist" are thrown around, it's difficult not to label this as some sort of religious crusade. Can you at least admit there are strong religious overtones at work here?
Oh come now, what do you honesty think?
given that there are over a hundred independently operating cells within iraq (reported in NYT this week, still looking for the link), it may be difficult to draw any general conclusions about the insurgency.
perhaps, though, a bigger influence may be the desire to push the US out of iraq. similar to the US' Revolutionary War -- was the bigger influence the desire for self-rule, or Christianity?
Uh, duh, of course there is a strong Islamic infulence, because they are Islam. That's like saying that there is a strong Christian influence in the coalition of the billing because the majority are Christian. Perhaps what you meant to say is something like militant Islamic influence.
I'll gladly admit there are strong relgious overtones at work there and all they need to do is look to America to see that heavyhanded religious tactics are not only rewarded in American politics, they are encouraged. The whole "god told me to do it" rhetoric that comes out of bush's mouth is only too obviously indicative of a religious crusade.
This is no war, this is an all out attack on the freedom of religion.
To what degree does "heavyhanded" tactics mean? I fail to see how blatant religious rhetoric in regards to this war is rewarded or encouraged. General Boykin was nearly fired for his remarks on the matter.
Who do you think is the attacker?
As far as Iraq goes, it's an incredibly messy police operation. "Mission Accomplished", remember?
"It" did not "get swept up". "It" got invaded, occupied, bombed and looted, its leader was falsely imprisoned, and is being put on trial for using the very same banned weapons as the invaders.
When Muslims are interned indefinitely and a Muslim nation is attacked in the name of God, and when terms such as "Crusade" and "terrorist" are thrown around, it is indeed difficult not to label this as some sort of religious crusade.
I can if you can.
I'm not convinced.
We get all kinds in this forum. You're new here, so you can't count on anyone knowing in advance what kind you are.
This is what I meant by the "knowing what we're up against" remark. So no offense should be taken.
Oh yes, I remember. I still wonder if the Bush administration thinks the American public is as stupid as they think it is.
Fair enough. However...
Umm, okay. Saddam Hussein was detained and is now on trial for: genocide perpetrated against Iraq's Kurdish population, including the suspected murder of thousand from the Barzani clan; murder perpetrated against political opponents; invasion of Kuwait and subsequent supression of the Kurdish and Shia rebellions; and the murder of Shia religious leaders.
Now I don't support the invasion of Iraq, despite how terrible Saddam Hussein was. I believe, in due time, Saddam will get what he deserves. But it's done and the US needs to clean up after itself. Part of that cleanup includes dealing with Saddam Hussein. What do you believe should be done with former President Saddam Hussein? Do you believe his deeds should go unpunished?
Iraq wasn't invaded in the name of God. The Bush administration still hasn't given us a straightforward answer to this question.
Understood and thank you. However (and I'm a long-time lurker), this forum sounds a bit jaded if I'm asked a loaded question suggesting I believe that the entire middle east should be bombed until kingdom comes. I presented an option (which many believe to be the correct course of action), then trivialized it, that's all.
Good. That's a relief. There have been some pretty off-the-wall posts in here advocating all-out nuclear genocide.
May I add that I found your reply to my previous, rather provocative post refreshingly gracious?
You can't honestly believe the US was attacked in the name of Allah, can you? I mean, sure they say that to help rally the troops to battle and convince people to die for the cause, but this isn't about religion -- it's about power. Bin Laden doesn't want an Islamic state as the endgame, he wants power and control over people's lives. Religion is merely a path to that end. He wants to re-establish the power and glory of the Caliphates of old, as I understand it. He wants to bring down the House of Saud and control the religious sites so as to control the people.
Same reason Bush uses religion. It's a means to an end, and the end is power. Strangely enough, religion gives you that kind of power over people's lives. Hell, the crusades were nothing but power plays as well, don't you agree?
And Boykin wasn't fired over his remarks... and was in fact defended by the administration and many of those who accuse Islam of waging a religious war on us.
Not forgetting, of course, the unforgettable: