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
displacedjim    RE:No need to escalate violence in the conflict..... yet.   9/16/2004 6:01:04 PM
Wow, that OBL is a real strategic thinker, and one patient son of a b!tch! He's been at it for 10 years, and he's planning for a war that lasts another 20-40 years more. "Those in the amputee wards would disagree with you." -- rbrooku Really? Well, I'm sure some do, anyway. Displacedjim
 
Quote    Reply

American Kafir    RE:No need to escalate violence in the conflict..... yet.   9/16/2004 8:19:55 PM
FJV, You latest (and brilliant) post reminds me of the movie We Were Soldiers, where they speak of how the trip from base camp to the battlefield via helicopter took 30 minutes, thus leaving men alone in the landing zone for an hour before being reinforced (left unsaid was the effect having a helicopter shot down had on reinforcement time). You're damned right it's about politics. Instead of focusing on the reality of the situation (we are at war) everyone wants to debate which heads should and should not have bullets in them and Monday morning quarterback every decision. Im tired of listening to the bought-and-paid-for Left (yes, some of Saddam's oil-for-food money went directly to anti-war protest organizers). WE control the battlefield. Nothing can change that but us.
 
Quote    Reply

juandos    RE:Americans must respect Islam   9/16/2004 8:37:10 PM
Why must Americans respect Islam? What has Islam done for America or Americans? We can see what some who claim to be Islamic have done at this site: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/
 
Quote    Reply

chemist    You all keep walking........I'm going to take a break--What?!   9/17/2004 1:04:06 AM
Orca has run out of stuff to GRUMble about? I don't believe it! YOu sick down there, cousin? Take care man, come back when you feel better/have the time..
 
Quote    Reply

swhitebull    RE:Americans must respect Islam   9/17/2004 7:16:42 AM
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome." - Winston Churchill
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    did we only go after soldiers and political leaders?   9/17/2004 7:24:27 AM
The question is, should we have only gone after soldiers and political leaders? [My psychological profile says - in paraphrase - this guy is concerned with what is ethical - as if that is somehow unusual or remarkable?] I refer you to the statistical analyst of the RAF - Freeman Dyson - a mathmetician at the time - see Weapons and Hope. Also to modern US defense analyst and historian Norman Friedman on how the "roots" of US nuclear policy can be found in our WWII era practices. He is not kind. I certainly hope we do not return to such practices. It is not brilliant to adopt policies that are simultaneously illegal, immoral and which force numbers of people to support our enemies. On the latter, read the USSBS and its data annexes: we failed pretty abjectly even in focused target subects, such as aircraft production, and submarine production. Germany increased production dramatically, and, in proportion to its size, Japan did even better. Had either mobilized earlier than they did (the US and UK mobilized sooner and far more completely, and taxed higher as well) we might have had a much worse time of it.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    but I am an atheist   9/17/2004 7:31:22 AM
That alone would not offend me - IF you were also ethical. But you seem not to value human life - nor to care to separate the guilty from the innocent. This is more than just wrong in a Christian (or even humanist) sense: it is also self defeating. Our side has - or should have - a clear advantage in very popular products - democracy - freedom - capitalism - and some reasonable system of justice. Human nature being what it is, we probably will ultimately persuade almost everyone that the right to own an RV, and your own business (or at least a good skilled job) will be more in demand than any ancient tradition, religious or otherwise. It is this hope that will give us defectors in places we need them (like the guy who betrayed bin Laden's cell phone number - a member of his staff). Destroy water supplies in a desert country and you really make us The Great Satan - it is no longer propaganda. [Desert people value water higher than gold, and for good reason.]
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:El cid - get real   9/17/2004 7:40:01 AM
I am. That is why I oppose proposals that won't work. Consider Ceasar: an enemy is not defeated until he is defeated in his mind. I have always understood that battle is mainly a psychological contest. I have always sought to fight to win - as Ceasar taught - when the enemy IS defeated in his mind he is defeated utterly. For that reason, I never allow the enemy to win psychological victories. I never say things that confirm HIS propaganda, or illusions, or claims about what justifies his actions. I never say or do things that encourage, or worse, force people to support the enemies. Returning to Ceasar, I say "divide and conquer." Divide the enemy every which way you can. From his people. From his allies. From his staff. And so on. Above all, gather and analyze information about the enemy and the political water he swims in. Identify the enemy key players, and assets (meaning both people and instrumentalities of power), and then ruthlessly destroy them in a systematic way. In spite of the fact it offends some notions of what Christians "must be" - I am not a pacifist. I will not hesitate to use, or authorize, the use of deadly force against terrorists. And I take the legal view that an accessory is as guilty as a principle - you don't have to carry a gun (or a bomb) to be a terrorist. You can be a mule, a communications guy, a person who operates a safe house or raises money - any useful function at all and you are on my list and you are as at risk as the guy running at my checkpoint firing his AK. In Vietnam, a country I loved, if a child I did not know well approached me and did not stop when I told him to (in his language) I would shoot him first and search for weapons later.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    American Law   9/17/2004 8:07:19 AM
Traditionally, it has always been illegal to render aide and comfort to the enemy. Early in the 20th century we added the idea of sedition - of saying things that hindered our cause and/or aided the enemy cause. But we did some other things now forgotten: you could not have expressed an opinion as an American civilian male during WWI. This is because there were none (other than children). Every male in the country was legally in the US Army. [When they drafted you, they just issued orders to report to a unit, and if you failed to report, you were lawfully a diserter. But even if you had not been drafted, you were still legally a US soldier, and thus bound as all US soldiers are by military rules of conduct.] Now we fight a war much more deadly than WWI could ever have become (for the USA at least). We fight an enemy of a radically new kind. We are led by a man who knows he was a C student, and who is wise enough to have assembled a very experienced staff and cabinet. They have determined that certain things are necessary for our security and for a reasonable hope of victory in this war. They have not ended democracy (although I understand that if a nuclear weapon goes off in New York or DC or someplace like that the plan is to do just that) - and you do have the option of voting for Kerry if you prefer a different strategy and policy. Wether or not it should be a crime to oppose the essence of our policy is something worthy of debate. But I think it is clearly immoral to be a house divided in the face of such a threat. After 911 I heard a lot of {phony it turns out) sayings like "united we stand." I am ashamed of the left for not sticking to their guns (they did vote for both Afghanistan and Iraq in Congress after all). I am even more ashamed of those on the right who wish to advocate making the wartime policy "Islam is not our enemy" change. It does not matter who you like in the Administration, this is not something anyone who matters disagrees with. Such a broad consensus by those with such broad responsibility and experience, who also know the classified materials not available to everyone, ought to be respected. And I would be a lot happier if you could give this speech.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    We may be making an economic mistake (it is true)   9/17/2004 8:14:18 AM
Looks to me like Bush et al may be repeating the Johnson era policy of "guns and butter." That is, increase military spending, do not curtail domestic spending dramatically or raise taxes dramatically, and try to sustaing that. Roman and I both have long term concerns for the US economy under present policy (and Roman is an econ guy). It may be this aspect of US policy is a mistake. If we made civilians do without (as in WWII) AND pay higher taxes, the war might seem more real and harder to not support through to a conclusion. It also may be our leaders are a little like Hitler, who was afraid of raising taxes, or mobilizing the economy, in spite of being a dictator. Only after bombing made the Allies so hated that "vengeance" became populat (vengeance for the bombing raids) did he dare go for mobilization (February 1945). We seem to be afraid of losing political support if we pay for the war as we go. And not paying for it probably will have serious effects down the road, as happened in the 1970s from the 1960s policies of Johnson.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics