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:I have no doubt ... declaration   9/20/2004 9:11:01 AM
I like rixtex reasoning. In WWII in North Africa a group of 82 USAAF NCOs wrote a letter to the US Army JAG and had it hand delivered. They had noticed that every Axis prisoner they flew out of Yugoslavia ended up in the graveyard. They objected, including this line: "We are willing to fight the Nazis. We are not willing to behave like them." I am not sure that sedition trials are a good idea? But I AM sure that PUBLIC disagreement with wartime policy is a BAD idea. When I have a problem with Bush et all, I talk to them about it. I see no reason to give aide and comfort to the enemy, even in the form of appearing divided. And I think it is clear we are divided. Listen to Democrats (and those farther left) talking about war policy.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    Rixtex   9/20/2004 9:14:00 AM
I think we will declare war - AFTER NYC and DC are blown up by atomic weapons. Probably not before then. I prefer we do it now. I prefer we become very militant about nw proliferation - including our "ally" Pakistan. But I see little hope we will even deal with North Korea. So it is only a matter of time. Sooner or later it is going to happen. THEN we will get serious.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE: Rules of engagement   9/20/2004 9:21:18 AM
I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in ideas being the supreme court of the rational. For that reason I would not advocate a person be banned for saying things I disagree with. [Indeed, what person does not disagree with me on something? I could never talk to anyone.] And no, you don't have to be on a side. IMHO that is stupidity on your part - for surely OBL regards you as his enemy - but your right nevertheless. And no, I don't think demonizing the enemy is clever. I didn't do that in Viet Nam, and I found it paid big dividends. I wasn't the one who invented the idea - the US Marines did - and they taught it to me. I found their ideas - embodied in a book written a generation earlier - worked very well indeed. But ironically, in the present war, the enemy is worthy of demonizing. As you can see in this thread, I will defend a Muslim. But not a radical, terrorist Muslim.
 
Quote    Reply

elcid    RE: EL CID   9/20/2004 9:27:00 AM
I am surprised at your ignorance of Islamic history (Sorkoi) - so well informed do you seem. In the original Islamic system, political leadership was permitted only to a direct linear decendent of the prophet, trained by a liberal institution to be a reformer. Exactly 10 generations on, this system was ended by the wholesale slaughter of all the family members as well as the teachers. There is indeed a number of cultures and traditions and denominations in which people claim to be decendents, but none of them are historically sound, assuming you believe the contemporary records. It is a great tragedy of Islamic history, and in several senses: Islam lost its institutional mechanism to reform and many conservative denominations attempt to lock Islam into its 11th century form because of it.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE: Succession to the Prophet   9/20/2004 9:47:19 AM
I am afraid on this issue you are wrong as matter of historical record. There is a great deal of dispute among early Muslims about what to do after the death of the Prophet. Basically 3 positions emerged: 1. A group who felt they had given thier political allegiance to the Prophet only- and with his death while they remained Muslims-they saw no need to pay taxes to Medina. 2. A second group argued that leadership of the Muslims should go through the descendants of the Prophet through his daughter Fatimah and her husband Ali (the cousin of the Prophet)- this group later become Shia 3. A group that argued that Khalifah (the successor to the Prophet)should be the one chosen by the Muslim community. The 3rd position prevailed. Armies were sent to bring group 1 into line. The view that you suggest is 'official Islam' is actually the political thought of the Shia it is not necessarily held by most Muslims today or before. As for the descendants of the Prophet all being wiped- like said there many thousands of descendants of the Prophet whose genalogies have been kept - while there is no doubt there must be a number of imposters in this total - its simply is not the case that all the descendants of the Prophet were wiped out. Are you refering to the massacre at Karbala (684?) or what specific event do you have in mind- that in my ignorance I do not know about.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE: blitz   9/20/2004 10:01:30 AM
"It is interesting you left out the Blitz on London and other British cities." As matter of record I did not its number 4 on my list. Its more interesting that you think I would. You can check my original post.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    Political Nature of AQ   9/20/2004 10:19:38 AM
Since the Spanish withdrawl of troops from Iraq- there have been no AQ attacks on Spanish targets. Does that suggest AQ operates with a political calculas- no different in FORM from other international actors. Or to put it simply AQ is a rational, politically motivated entity which understands realpolitik-that does not mean we have to endorse their aims or surrender to them or agree with their politics but it simply not the case that they are diifferent in kind from other international political entities. From this it follows they can be dealt with using the full spectrum of mechanisms by which international relations are regulated and disciplined including military action but not excluding diplomacy. If you do nor agree with this conclusion you need to demonstrate that AQ are intrinsically different. It would be useful if you did not need to rely on esoteric knowledge to make good your argument- and it would helpful if we did not have resort to insults or invective like some on this thread.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE: civilizations 4 all perhaps another mis-reading   9/20/2004 10:28:16 AM
El Cid in your rush you have seem to have mis-read (again) what I wrote in my orginial post- which I quote below: "As for AQ waging a war on civilization per se- what are your sources for these statements? Would not be more accurate to that AQ have different vision of civilization- they are not against city-based literate cultures, they are not adovocating a hunter-gather lifestlye (though given obesity epidemic in the US- it might not be such a bad idea). You respond by writing the follow: " you have aA hunter gatherer civilization cannot support the majority of the population of the planet. If AQ could rule, it would cause a great famine. And then there is the matter of the very definition of civilization - it means living in cities. If they are against a city based culture they are quite literally anti-civilization, by definition" We seem to have our wires crossed. I said that AQ are not against literate citied cultures which one definaiton of civilization. As your refrain is that AQ are anti-civilization per se I was wondering whether you would care to elaborate on this point- since you are agree that by defination anyone in faovur of literate city-based cultures cannot against civilization. So perhaps you could devlep your idea of civilization and clarify why AQ are excluded from it?
 
Quote    Reply

PlatypusMaximus    RE:Political Nature of AQ   9/20/2004 10:51:31 AM
i would argue that when you specifically target civilians for greater effect, then politically, you're not very rational or understanding.
 
Quote    Reply

sorkoi2003    RE: Chemist and mis- Rule of engagement   9/20/2004 10:54:22 AM
Chemist, You are going to dictate to me how to dissent! How to argue? 1. My 'whining' was because bull hoped that views I expressed would get me kicked of SP. That what I thought was undemocratic. 2. The fact you and bull do not understand or agree with what I am saying does not cause me sleeplessness nights or any anxiety. So there is no need for me to get over it. If you do not want to read what I have to say ignore it. Alas I would love to defend my thesis- if it needed defence... there is little that you have said that really engaged with my argument. Most of your response has rather overblown name-calling that you have hurled my way: relativistic, marxist etc. But to show that I have a commitment to discussion and debate I will try to respond to what I can gather from your intemperate comments: 3. Relativism as it normally understood: means the belief that any value is good as anyother. I am aware of having made that point. Is there more to your accusation of relativism than a knee-jerk reaction? 4. I have not condemned the US for fighting an enemy that wishes to expand its influnce at the expense of the influcne of the US. My point is to recognize it as that a war in clausewitian or Schmittian sense - not get carried with hype about fighting wars to 'end all wars'. Wars are fought for reason of political self-interest there is no harm in that- but let us recognize them for what they are political conflicts. 4. You ask: Why care if US is winning or losing the 'war on terror' well there are many reasons for caring. For one thing the outcome of the conflict could have a major effect on the world order which would effect lives of millions of people including those on this list. 5.Marxism/Existenalitic-I do not think I made any Marxist or Existentialist arguments. So I have no idea what you mean by this- perhaps another short-hand for a view that does not meet your definaiton of "superior argument". Alas, I would have more respect for your 'superior argumentative skill if they were not belied by your display of such inferior manners.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics