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
Uchiita    RE:A Just War or Just A War / reply to Chemist   8/21/2004 6:06:13 AM
Hello, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ah, don't worry about OW. He's an equal opportunity kinda guy. Race, gender, or creed are things that matter not to OW. He gives you both barrels all the time. He's consistent. >>>>>>>>>>>> Well that's good to know. However, I sincerely doubt whether he would use the sexually aggressive and patronising language such as "sweetheart" "sweetie" "Chiquita" "Missie", or tell me to "flap my hips" at passing GIs (???) if he thought I was an African American male. Or maybe he would, I don't know. >>>>>>>>>>>>> But you mentioned something in your first post that peaked my interest: justice. Care to define? Such a nebulous term it is, justice. What exactly do you mean? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Quite a deep one to begin with! But we should I suppose start from the basics. However, this a huge topic. I've tried to summarise as best I can. Apologies for the length. Justice is usually defined in four senses: 1. justice, justness -- the quality of being just or fair 2. justice, judicature -- the administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments; "justice deferred is justice denied" 3. judge, justice, jurist, magistrate -- a public official authorized to decide questions bought before a court of justice 4. Department of Justice, Justice Department, Justice -- the federal department responsible for enforcing federal laws (including the enforcement of all civil rights legislation); created in 1870. In the UK this department falls under the Home Office and most countries have some similar government department. Now I think that in the senses most relevant to this discussion definitions 1 and 2 are probably the most relevant. In western jurisprudence (legal philosophy), which takes its ethical base from Judeo-Christian philosophy, the quality of being just and fair means assuming that all human beings have the inalienable right to equitable treatment by those in authority and the systems which have been set in place. This is usually termed as 'natural justice". As an extension of this we can also speak of human rights - such as the right to a fair and independent trial by ones peers, the right to free speech etc etc. We extend these basic definitions of justice to include "social justice" and in the case of armed conflict, justice in war. Most of our definitions of justice state that all human beings are 'created equal" that is, have certain unassailable rights regardless of race, creed, political or sexual orientation, nationality, or status. Therefore it is not acceptable under these definitions to treat someone differently under the law by virtue. Social Justice implies that every human being has the right to certain things - such as food, shelter, education, health care etc. Now in the case of armed conflict international jurisprudence (legal philosophy), emerged in medieval Europe around about the 8th Century AD, when the Celtic tribal kings agreed to spare women, children, clergy and other non-combatants from violence during conflict. These laws were influenced heavily by the writings of St Augustine of Hippo who formulated the Just War theory. Both of the these developments in jurisprudence were designed to limit the damage of war. The Just War Theory, upon which most of our international agreements concerning war, has two main strands: "jus ad bellum ( just reasons for going to war) and "jus in bellum" - correct conduct during a war. The politician is usually concerned with the former, the soldier with the latter, and conflict resolution professionals, diplomats etc must concern themselves with both. A breakdown of the Just War theory, for those who are interested, can be found at http://www.iep.utm.edu/j/justwar.htm, although I'm sure many are already familiar with it. Now the question is, is the current conflict in Iraq a just war, or just a war? Uchiita
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    If its the olive branch great. If not send them to hell    8/21/2004 6:06:39 AM
This is a somewhat understandable emotional position - rather more popular than I would expect on a board nominally dedicated to serious discussion - but nevertheless understandable. The problem is that it is not practical. "Know thy enemy" is an ancient addage and proverb, and not an unsound one. If one assumes all Islamic people are the enemy, one may have to send 2 billions to hell. This is not going to be easy at least. But much worse than that it is tragically not required. It would force those people to adopt the "my enemy's enemy is my friend" solution in many cases. It would make the real enemy much stronger. OBL was reported amazed and upset that at least a billion Muslims did not start a literal jihad after 911. Adopt this kind of attitude as policy, we might give him that yet.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE:Religion is bs..   8/21/2004 6:12:25 AM
Most of the population of the world does not live in secular, Western society. And a surprising fraction of the population of secular, Western society is religious. Further, there are secular institutions which study traditional concepts because we believe there is actual knowledge in there. [For example, the Johns' Hopkins program to study traditional Oriental medicine to discover the active pharmacological and diagnostic tools imbedded in it]. Just because an explanation for something is not secular does not mean it is false. The great religions are about eternal truths, truths few secular thinkers reject (except maybe niialists). Essentially, this statement is false, and acting as if it were true will cost you the ability to understand both friend and foe.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    this war I don't think anyone will win in the traditional sense   8/21/2004 6:18:30 AM
In the long run, we will win. How long is impossible to say. The popularity of the "lump all (fill in the blank) together" attitude means it may be we will get a much worse war in the medium term - before it gets better. But no matter how much we lose - we CANNOT lose the war. The enemy is INCAPABLE of ruling the world - and any place he tries most people will learn to hate it - even if they expected otherwise. Check out Afghan attitudes about OBL and AQ. Not many fans there, and no women fans. The enemy cannot win even the most conservative Muslims - because the Wahabs reject all major forms of Islam as it evolved past its third century. The sooner WE learn to win them - as we do in Afghanistan - the sooner we will win the war.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    British Imperialism   8/21/2004 6:36:54 AM
First - know this - I write as a decendent of a people wronged by British Imperialism. My country was conquered in a.d. 917. Its language was surpressed and finally died in 1848. Its religion was surpressed and only in the last generation may have been reborn - a shadow of its former self. Its cultural form (the gens) was surpressed and died and is studied only by historians. I submit to you that British Imperialism - it had a capital I and was a formal policy eventually - was most successful - and survived as long as any system in history - about a thousand years. Most of the laws and policies we associate with black slavery were invented and perfected in the British Isles for use against that "inferior" set of Keltic races - the "obviously subhuman" brown eyed, black haired peoples. It survived into the twentieth century, in law, institutions and attitudes - see the Corn is Green (in any form) for an educational perspective from Wales (the story led to opening of public school to the "subhumans"). The Methodist Church was born because two Anglican priests (John and Charles Wesley) dared preach to the "subhumans" - it was forbidden by the Church of England and they were excuminicated for it. It is entirely false and misleading to claim there is anything remotely like British Imperialism in the US system - unless one refers to the colonilization of the Philippines - long past.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    The world economic-political system and US leadership   8/21/2004 6:42:21 AM
The world system is indeed led by the US. But it is not dominated by the US. The US is not a colonial ruler and does not generally behave as a colonial power used to behave. [Clinton came close, using cruise missiles illegally for slight cause, illegally crossing Pakistan, with which he had no beef, to attack Afghanistan. But Clinton is supposed to be a left wing politician, not a right wing imperialist.] The world system works because everyone benefits from it. It would not be possible to impose it. Nor is it really possible to impose change on it. This is the basic problem with the terrorists war - they cannot win because the system is not going to do things their way - no matter what they do. The more they do, the more enemies they will make. And if we listened to John Kerry, and elected him, and he really honored his promise to "call bin Laden on the phone and end the war" - we would quickly find we don't like a world where women are forbidden to go to school, have a job, or show their ankels without getting beaten. I repeat, they cannot win, so they will not. No matter how many of us are foolish and do things that drive recruits toward them, they simply cannot win.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    the huge stake the Saudi regime has in the US economy   8/21/2004 6:45:11 AM
The Saudi regime does not control the USA or its economy. The relationship is simbiotic, and likely to continue, even when the regime falls, which I expect. But if OBL takes over the place (a possibility), it won't mean he calls the shots.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    The conflict in Iraq has been likened to 'another Vietnam'   8/21/2004 6:52:18 AM
But not properly so. It is only the illusion of those on the left who want another Vietnam to protest against. As a Viet Nam veteran, trust me: there is virtually nothing similar about the conflicts. Even had we invaded the Red River Valley, as I once proposed we do, we would not have been in Hanoi in less than a month. By the standards of Vietnam, Iraq is not a war at all. We lost more men in a week than we have lost total in this "war." We lost 2000 aircraft a year. We faced an enemy that was much better organized led by a great captain who had defeated formidible enemies before (Japanese and French) - not a glorified thug like Saddam who had failed to win the war he started with Iran. Nor did we have a legal or moral case against Vietnam in the league of the one we had on Iraq - Iraq had failed to honor the terms of the 1991 armistice and we had a standing right to enforce it. It is a major policy failure of the Clinton Administration - and the first Bush Administration - this was not done before.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    The lack of understanding about Islam, and middle eastern society is atrocious,   8/21/2004 6:55:19 AM
Yet note that those of us who understand both still disagree with you. The war with Iraq in 2003 should never have been a possibility. If George Bush Sr. had not halted the offensive prematurely. If Clinton had enforced the armistice terms properly. In either case, Bush Jr. would not have faced the problem. Understanding Islam and the Middle East does not make this any less true. If you understand either, you KNOW that respect in the Arab world is not going to come from not standing up for what you have said.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    Nice response Uchiita   8/21/2004 7:00:05 AM
Your first reply to GRUM was well done. But know that GRUM is a hopeless case - for reasons unclear he can get away with breaking the rules of the board and not get bounced? He always attacks anyone who says Islam is not totally awful, including the guy who started this thread, and myself. But GRUM has admitted he often is just talking to get a reaction, and he has admitted he learns from us. Don't react - it just plays his game.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics