Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Iraq Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Americans must respect Islam
salaam al-aqaaid    5/13/2004 10:18:35 AM
The outrageous atrocities commited by Americans at the Abu al-Grayyib prison complex speaks to a need for the United States Americans to give sensetivity training to its entire military so that they will no longer offind Muslims with the contemptious use of women as prison guards and unsavery adiction to homosexual pornographies. These things are offinsive to the Muslims community. Have you no shame? You must remove all women and homosexuals from contact with Muslim prisoners. This is offinsive.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
elcid    RE:This will make it Simple - We invaded Iraq - Because We Could    10/2/2004 5:21:58 AM
Thank you old man. At least someone is thinking in geostrategic terms how to deal with terrorism. And there have long been radical Islamic terrorists. At least you are not evading the central issue - if we wish to have the initiative and not just be an eternal victim.
 
Quote    Reply

chemist    RE:Post-9/11 Assescessment Who we really should ahve invaded   10/2/2004 9:58:32 AM
Sigh, So these 'organs' arre mind readers now? The same people who said Reagan was incurious, despite the massive collection of letters he wrote as evidence of the opposite, are to be trusted as accurately conveying 'attitude?' The same people who find a bill comming 50 or so votes short of acceptance an 'emphatic defeat'(Check out the AP that reports that a 227-186 vote on gay marriage as an emphatic defeat', that's plurality in favor of the bill and only 49 short of the 2/3 majority required for acceptance) as accurately portraying attitude and internal dialogue? Riiigggghhhhhtttt. Uh-huh. Sure, better up your dosage since you're having delusions again..
 
Quote    Reply

apsaroake    RE:Americans must respect Islam   10/2/2004 1:28:31 PM
You seem to think that only Muslims are offended by the actions of the few. Most religions, including Christanity find this behavior abhorrant. But we also find it abhorrant for someone to cut someones head off because his religious views that conflict with our own. So is it fair to Americans that you classify them ALL in the same boat? So then should we classify all Muslims in the same boat as Ayman Al- Zarqawi. If that is the case the solution will not be found in this world. Most terrorists deny the simple fact that they and all people of the world were created by God and in his image. That all men were given FREE WILL to choose right from wrong and that if God is the almighty creator of the Universe, he needs no mans help to forcefully or forcibly convert them to submit to his will. Because he could forcibly make us all to submit to him in a blink of an eye, but like a father he wants mankind to come to him of their own FREE WILL.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Regime change and Invasion of Iraq....    10/2/2004 1:45:22 PM
"This is the second most read non-governmental military discussion board in the world, after Janes." It maybe very self-satisfying to us to think that we have great influence on the world by contributing to this board- but I think its very unlikely. Most people on this board have interest in military and geopolitics- a minority pursuit- I am not aware how discussions on this board have had any effect on any major policy decision. This not a board of opinion-makers- whatever we may like to think.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:politics and literality   10/2/2004 1:53:48 PM
"I have reasonable grounds to believe OBL interprets the Koran literally when it divides mankind into two parts." I do not know what these reasonable grounds could be- I do not how you know OBL 'interprets the Koran literally' (I do not anyone who knows anything about the Qur'an- could interpret it literally- leaving aside the slight problem an interpretation cannot be literal and still be interpretation- literality would negate the necessity of interpretation- and I certainly I have no idea why reading the Qur'an has much to do with strategy of sharp distinction between friend and enemy which is at the heart of the political. G.Bush makes distinction between those who support the war and those who oppose it, Marxists, neo-cons (among many others) all divided up the world into friend and enemy without needing the Qur'an as did the Manichians. Christ spoke of those who are not with me are against me... the Qur'an also denies the binary split...
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE:Patriotsim can be good or bad.   10/2/2004 2:09:21 PM
If we start talking about sedition acts- let us assume that laws of one country apply throughout the world- also let aslo forget that all laws can trumped by appeal to justice. For example, women in Switerland did not get the vote until 1970, people of African-American descent were denied political rights in large parts of the U.S until mid-60s- when they broke the law in the name of justice... It would seem (I am sure it is not) your position would have been to suggest that civil rights movement should hang fire because the cold war was going and laws of the land be respected. As for Bush being unfairly criticised- he's big boy I am sure he can handled it. Once you concede the political nature of this discourse than categories such as fair and unfair are not really helpful. There are many people on this board and elsewhere who think that Bush is best man for the job, they many patriotic and intellegent Americans who think Bush is a disaster. You can adjudicate between these positions- since the process of adjudication itself as part of the conflict. Just Bush is president does not make him right. There are some people who believe my country right or wrong, they others who like Dr. Johnshon believe that 'patriotism is the last refugee a sconderl clings to'. Maybe socieites of Europe and Asia who have had longer histories are more willing to except that are no exceptional countries, with exceptional missions, beneath the bluster, the flags we are all too human.
 
Quote    Reply

displacedjim    RE:Regime change and Invasion of Iraq....    10/2/2004 3:24:06 PM
"McCarthyism was essentially phony patriotism, alleging conspiracy where it did not exist." -- ElCid ---- Wrong. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Query for RBrookU   10/2/2004 4:14:26 PM
“Rebrooku (what does that mean anyway?)” My name, without an “e”. What, you think I won’t accept the consequences of my arguments, and hide from the hemlock? As a Sufi friend of mine says, “Hemlock is a delicious drink, better than even coffee!” But then, you’d have to read Rumi to get that. Maybe you’d have to have a better knowledge of history and culture also, particularly the fact that Sufism contains a lineage of the original Academy (you know, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle etc.). “an argument is not fallacious just because you wish to use an insulting adjective to describe it: it must be one of the identified fallacies to be fallacious.” Very good, proper discourse. You’re right, it is not technically “fallacious”, it is simply a false statement you keep making as a point. “In this case, the war in Iraq is the second campaign in the War on Terror. “ And a none to bright one at that. Couple of facts: 1. Saddam and the Baathists were a mortal enemy of Al Qaeda and now they are at least momentarily allied (and the longer this goes on the more chance the alliance will become permanent and Iraqi Sunni nationalism will become infused with religious jihad). 2. Just as American combat soldiers can be induced to stay in the service by allowing them to go to combat, so can jihadis be induced to continue with jihad by giving them a target they can actually attack. The Iraq occupation IS a great recruiting tool for the jihadis. Containment may seem impossible, but how many suicide bombers are over forty? “the properly elected and appointed officials of our country made a policy decision. Further, the policy decision appears sound at its foundation.” Appearances can be deceptive. You’re an analyst, you should know that. “The formulation of policy was formal and deliberative. That is, it did not begin with the conclusion (as is charged by some on this board) we must invade Iraq." There is much evidence to the contrary. The whole point about the “intelligence” failure on WMDs is that the final intelligence presented was skewed by the expectations and desires of the very top echelons of this Administration. The attitude that Iraq was the major enemy and target was not going to be contradicted without the risk of losing one’s job for contradicting it. Lots of testimony to that in the 9/11 hearings. “Instead, it began with a definition of the enemy, which for our purposes can be summarized as radical islamic terror organizations and all the nations, organizations and infrastructures which support them.” YIKES! Here we go with the confusing of Stalinist Baathists with religious fundamentalists just because they’re both anti-American. No wonder we screwed up. Sound Military and political strategy has never, to my knowledge, encouraged enemy alliances instead of seeking to disrupt and divide enemies. Well, I guess the laws of warfare are being rewritten by that brilliant genius of a President we have! Hell, who needs a general staff, or even analysts for that matter? “Next, a deliberative process was used to decide how to engage this elusive enemy.” Bomb a different enemy and call it even. Brilliant! Just like the thinking in ‘Nam, declare victory and go home! Well, that one worked out, so let’s hope this one works out despite the ridiculousness of it. “You seem to understand the first conclusion that was reached: that Afghanistan needed to be removed as a base of operations for Al Quaida. You may or may not have missed that the Administration gave the Afghan regime a warning and some time before invading.” They gave them enough time to get our forces in place. Which is what they also did with Iraq, despite assurances to the voters and our allies that they really were trying to find a “diplomatic solution”. Not a bad tactic (classic, as a matter of fact), if an invasion of a particular place is a sound idea to start with. If it’s not a good idea, the tactic just makes for more problems with credibility, both with the voters and with allies. “But you evaded the question: what country would you have invaded second?” I bet either (a) you didn't want to invade anyplace, or (b) you could not name any place of similar or greater strategic value in the WOT.” Question for you, why not just have focused on using Afghanistan as a meat grinder for Al Qaeda and the other jihadis? It’s been a meat grinder since the time of Alexander the Great (who some historians contribute wounds received there as contributing to his early demise). Put it another way, the Iraq occupation helps to recruit those seeking martyrdom while Afghanistan discourages them. They have trouble getting at Americans in Afghanistan, and find themselves being killed by other Muslims. Afghanis really hate foreigners more than they hate each other. Which is why American Special Forces are so successful, they act like Afghanis (well, that and smart weapons and superior communications). So, the population of disaffect
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:Post-9/11 Assescessment Failed States and Dominos   10/2/2004 5:05:44 PM
“Somolia? The Somolia that has finally established a process to form a Parliment, which in turn will elect an interim President?” So, withdrawing and leaving a failed state has turned into a good thing? Well, there goes the “failed state” argument for not withdrawing the bulk of our forces from Iraq. “Somolia, in East Africa, far from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Egypt?” You mean it is only strategic, being on the Horn of east Africa and the oil shipping lanes? And that Al Qaeda actually engaged American forces there, and used (and probably still uses) it as a base of operations? Oh, right! You mean it ain’t a “Domino”!
 
Quote    Reply

rbrooku    RE:This will make it Simple - We invaded Iraq - Because We Could    10/2/2004 5:13:13 PM
"You seemed to say that policy-makers were badly informed because of media." All politics is local, foreign or domestic. Our leaders play to the media, and our media has begun to, literally, follow along with partisan political play books. Want to know what the neocon talking points are? Turn to Fox News, they virtualy mirror them. Much of what is said here on "policy" is a mirror of political talking points, not independent rational thought. One of the chief problems with "foreign analysts" is that they miss the local politics that drives foreign policy. Big factor to miss, yes?
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics