baffledking - 16 May 2008 03:41 PM

It’s too bad if Canadians have stopped taking terrorism seriously.  That will probably give them an improved opportunity to taste some of it for themselves.

Thanks to homeland-security (read terrorism) we now have cops running around tasering bedridden old men, ticket-less subway passengers, and confused immigrants.  What’s more, our tax money is going to military contracts and defense spending (international and federal) instead of funding hospitals and education.

Europe partied while Hitler got his start also, as I recall.  You have conceded my point while making the caveat that the support of Bush from conservative governments is not a popular position among the people.

The riots in France confronted the French with the fact that their country is being turned into a colony.  The resulting lawlessness was properly taken as a wake-up call regarding vulnerability to terrorism.  French police could not act effectively in Islamic-controlled regions. France lost its sovereignty in localized regions.

Who are you comparing Hitler with?  Saddam? Khamenei?

Islamic terrorism.  That thing you’re not concerned about.
Hitler would have gone nowhere without an ideology that drove the German people.

We have to remember that prior to the Iraq war Saddam Hussein was effectively contained in his borders and posed no real threat to his neighbors.  An analogy between him and Hitler is just not accurate.  Khamenei was also in a similarly landlocked boat until we set him a sea with our invasion of Iraq which has since become a veritable farmers market for anti-US sentiment, terrorist training camps and radical Islamic dogma for both Shia and Sunni alike.  Meanwhile the neo-cons have bankrupted the nation, ripped apart the constitution and tainted the American flag with blood and oil in the minds of the entire world for the foreseeable future.

What should have been viewed in France as a strictly domestic problem (’cause that’s what the riots were) was blown out of proportion in the atmosFEAR (sorry, couldn’t resist) of post-9/11 rhetoric that caused deep-seeded local ethnic strife to be seen as some kind of terrorist coming-out party.

I think you substantially overstate the case.  The riots were caused by France’s stagnant economic system, and that was Sarkozy’s dominant appeal in the election.  But as I’ve already pointed out, the riots pointed to the fact that France had lost its sovereignty over portions of France that have been heavily settled by Muslims.
http://web.stratfor.com/images/europe/map/11_26_paris_big_zoom.
Add “jpg” on the end to view the image using your browser.

Iraq does not have the infrastructure to exploit its own oil wealth.  If the country does not exploit its own oil wealth, it will not be able to take advantage of the wealth resulting from oil (stating the very obvious, I hope).

So:  Pillaging?

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
pil·lage
1.to strip ruthlessly of money or goods by open violence, as in war; plunder:
2.to take as booty.
3.to rob with open violence; take booty
4.the act of plundering, esp. in war.

Yes, pillaging.
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/41083/
http://harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
http://www.counterpunch.org/sommerfeld05172003.html

Corresponding to the order of your links:

Halliburton has become synonymous with war profiteering, but there are lots of other greedy fingers in the pie. We name names on 10 of the worst.

Pillaging?

Iraq was going to change all that. In one place on Earth, the theory would finally be put into practice in its most perfect and uncompromised form. A country of 25 million would not be rebuilt as it was before the war; it would be erased, disappeared. In its place would spring forth a gleaming showroom for laissez-faire economics, a utopia such as the world had never seen.

Capitalism=pillaging?  Are you a communist, baffledking?

These lootings were instigated or tolerated. Many Iraqis report on futile attempts to get soldiers to intervene. Even appeals to the command center in the Palestine Hotel remained fruitless. Looters were both simple people from the poor quarters and wealthy residents of the neighborhood. People stole for reasons of poverty, anger, revenge or greed, and their spoils were often sold off the same day on the streets.

Apparently if the Iraqi people loot their own government institutions (the government that had previously exploited them), it is just as if the United States were doing the plundering itself.

I find the kind of reasoning exemplified by the use of those three URLs difficult to understand.

    and there goes Sir Bryan again Ladies and Gentlmen,…

Bryan - 17 May 2008 08:03 AM

And you think that is a good reason for bush to come and steal it away????

Who’s stealing?

You mean to tell me that bush is a ligitimate iraqi citizen and maybe arab and muslim along the way???in that case he is an illegitimate US President. Either way, your daddy is in merky waters.

Iraq does not get benefit from its oil if it stays in the ground.

and just where did you get that iraq does not benefit from its oil since you seem to assume its oil stays in the ground?  b4 it has been invaded, it was ranked the 4th oil producer or exporter in the world.

Iraq does get benefit from its oil if it is pumped out of the ground and sold.

pumped and sold by whom? you’re uncle bush ? I am sorry Bryan, you make me want to be bad (not mean bad, just playful bad).

If you were an Iraqi leader would you want your nation’s oil to remain in the ground or would you want to make some arrangement to attract foreign investment and infrastructure to help make use of your nation’s biggest economic engine?

that was being done before without bush’s hands in.

erasmusinfinity - 17 May 2008 10:51 AM

jls7227 - 17 May 2008 10:34 AM

This confirms that the U.S. have a very interesting concept of what majority is.

I think that it would be more fair to say that a minority in America “have a very interesting concept of what majority is,” or else they altogether don’t care about it.  And this matter does not particularly represent the people of the US.

By “U.S.” I meant the rules that let people choose Government leaders. Probably it’s time to change them, for example:

1) make election direct, which would let us have Gore instead of Bush in 2000, or

2) make voting mandatory, so less people could say “not my fault, I did not give him my vote”.

Balak - 12 May 2008 09:49 AM

How can the Hitchenses and Harrises still seriously argue that ‘irrational belief in the Koran’ is the real source of motivation for rage against U.S. imperialism?

Well, maybe there are multiple contributing effects— maybe both an excuse and an irrational belief in the Koran contribute to the problem.

What about the Dutch cartoonists? 
What about blowing up the Bamiyan statues in Afghanistan?

I think blaming the U.S. for everything is itself an over-simplification—but it makes it really easy to skim Balak’s posts…

jls7227,

I like both of your suggestions.  They would good steps in a positive direction.

Yes Jackson,

I can agree with Balak that some of America’s corporate and governmental leaders have a shady history of allying themselves with even shadier leaders within the middle east.  And that such alliances have been founded upon selfish, greedy and ethically misguided motives.  I do not justify any form of imperialism or economic oppression.  But, there is an unfortunate leftist sort of jingoism going around that refers to the global capitalist enterprise as a sort of nationalist “imperialism” and that is a false metaphor.  One may argue that global capitalism is a destructive force, but we must understand that the raw quest for pure financial profit has no concern for any particular nation or culture.  In fact, it is coldly indifferent to all cultures and nations, including the US.

Herein lies another false notion that has become popular around the world lately, much to the blame of poor American leadership.  Namely, that of assuming that the expansion of global capitalism is somehow a US led global invasion.  Global capitalism is global.  That is the whole point.  It doesn’t give a damn about the US any more than it does about the middle east.  And while a lot of poor, uneducated and illiterate muslims in the middle east may think that an attack on Americans is some sort of rage against “the man,” the militant pricks who orchestrated 9/11 were not poor or oppressed.  They were full blown wealthy global capitalists with stock portfolios and Swiss bank accounts to boot.

So, to explain away islamic terrorism as a simple knee jerk reaction to economic oppression doesn’t take any of this into account.  It also doesn’t take into account the characteristic terrorist acts spanning islamic history over the past centuries.  We must also remember that there have been countless populations in other nations and across history who have been oppressed to similar and much greater extents and who have not behaved accordingly.  For better or for worse, some have responded with peaceful and nonviolent protests and some have simply accepted oppression.

If we are to work constructively to improve the global situation it is essential that we examine the roles that islam AND christianity play in both politically polarizing large global populations, and also that we examine the underlying belief systems that lead to certain specified actions.  It is not difficult to make connections between specified religious beliefs and specified behaviors.

erasmusinfinity - 18 May 2008 07:38 AM

Yes Jackson,

I can agree with Balak that some of America’s corporate and governmental leaders have a shady history of allying themselves with even shadier leaders within the middle east.  And that such alliances have been founded upon selfish, greedy and ethically misguided motives.

misguided??? you’re kidding, right? why is it whenever a us leader comits a crime (assaulting Iraq and taking its citizens’ freedom away from them is a crime, saddam was simply the competition), the motives are misguided therefore completely excusing the act, and when an arab retaliates to a killing of their loved ones and the denying of their own rights in their own soil it is an act of terror? when cia deliberately made up rumors about iraq having weapon of mass destruction, it did so that the bush cartel could claim to have legitimate motive to attack iraq and steal its oil. This is a focused planned objective that was anything but misguided. Unless you mean to tell me that CIA is a dumb useless agency that does not know what the matched potato it is doing? which bring me to think JFK was right, ....but he’s been assassinated, ....by some mental reject freak…

the militant pricks who orchestrated 9/11 were not poor or oppressed.  They were full blown wealthy global capitalists with stock portfolios and Swiss bank accounts to boot.

those militants pricks also just so happen to be cia operatives that got into the us with related visas. Apparently the $100K that Attaa got, never been traced to any source, one wonders if cia would be stupid enough to trace the $100K back to itself?!

I say stop the killing of innocent people back there and the so called acts of terrors would subside. When the iraq war broke out, the civilians casualities figures announced here were around less than I think about 200 or something during the first 3 months, I just so happened to have gone out of the country shortly after, and the figures acknowledged outside were more than 94K (at that point in about 6 mos into the war)!!!!! this is the type of truth that REALLY is behind “terrorist acts” and that the common man in America is never allowed to know. and here are some claiming that the problem is with islam. Also, in regard to “poor uneducated muslims”, I’d simply comment that if industrialized countries (led by the US) stop sucking these poor people’s countries’ life blood, that maybe those poor people would have at some point the opportunity to convert their own resources into the energy that will allow them to exit out of povrety and ignorance once and for all.  btw, I am a highschool drop out, I believe you can do better than me in seeing as the whoever you think you are.

So, to explain away islamic terrorism as a simple knee jerk reaction to economic oppression doesn’t take any of this into account.  It also doesn’t take into account the characteristic terrorist acts spanning islamic history over the past centuries.  We must also remember that there have been countless populations in other nations and across history who have been oppressed to similar and much greater extents and who have not behaved accordingly.  For better or for worse, some have responded with peaceful and nonviolent protests and some have simply accepted oppression.

the problem is a 2 way street. If you are not Accountable being as “Knowing as you are”, what makes you think that they will, being the “poor, uneducated and ignorant” ones?!

Daisy - 18 May 2008 02:13 PM

misguided??? you’re kidding, right? why is it whenever a us leader comits a crime (assaulting Iraq and taking its citizens’ freedom away from them is a crime), the motives are misguided therefore completely excusing the act (I mean poor Clinton messed with a girl and they wanted to crucify him, and here’s a guy who by Jesus’ standards is a war criminal and yet, he is “fine"),

I never said that there was any excuse for any particular act.  I think that you missed the point of my words and that we are pretty much on the same page when it comes to the injustice of people being killed in the Middle East.

Daisy - 18 May 2008 02:13 PM

and when an arab retaliates to a killing of their loved ones and the denyng of their own rights in their own soil it is an act of terror?

It is incorrect to refer to an Arab attack against civilian Americans as a “retaliation” for global capitalism.  Particularly when the individuals perpetrating the retributive acts are, as I said before, global capitalists.  As I suggested in my last post, there is a logical error in equating the US with global capitalism.  I also don’t see that there is any moral legitimacy in killing others for the sake of retribution, whether enacted by Americans or persons living in the Middle East.  Such would be an act of terror regardless of who committed it.

Daisy - 18 May 2008 02:13 PM

the problem is a 2 way street. If you are not accountable being as “Knowing as you are”, what makes you think that they will being the “poor, uneducated and ignorant” ones?!

I did not say that Arabs are poor or ignorant.  I said that there are poor, uneducated and ignorant people in the middle east and that they are being deceived into believing that the US, western relativism, infidels, etc. are their enemy.  There is plenty of poverty and ignorance that is shared in all corners of the globe, and I certainly agree that ignorance is to be found at home in the US just as it is abroad.  Hence my point about ”islam and christianity.” Religious beliefs polarize people globally and prevent provincial majorities from correctly understanding globally humane issues.  People in the Middle East and people in the United Stated both need to look as much inside their own societies as they need to look outside of them if they want to find the keys to the world’s socio-economic problems.

I won’t pretend to be interested in debating whether or not the 9/11 hijackers were CIA operatives.  I think that the idea is silly, but I don’t suppose it matters to our discussion either way.

I can see that you are upset about the violence in the Middle East and I am too.  And, I have said nothing in my post that I believe you to truly disagree with.  I also want the killing to stop.  I have always opposed it.  And I have certainly never attempted to legitimize any violence from any side.

Daisy - 17 May 2008 01:18 PM

Bryan - 17 May 2008 08:03 AM

And you think that is a good reason for bush to come and steal it away????

Who’s stealing?

You mean to tell me that bush is a ligitimate iraqi citizen and maybe arab and muslim along the way???

No.  I was just trying to get you to answer the question.

Iraq does not get benefit from its oil if it stays in the ground.

and just where did you get that iraq does not benefit from its oil since you seem to assume its oil stays in the ground?

Iraq is producing way below its capacity.  If they sell more they make more money.  They need the money.  I don’t assume that Iraqi oil stays in the ground totally.  I simply note that Iraq is producing well below its capacity, largely because of sabotage by terrorists and the (until recently) militia control of Basra.  Plus the fact that Iraq does not have the means to produce its own oil production infrastructure.  They will have to rely on some form of foreign investment.  They can look to Russia or Iran or even China, I suppose--but why should they go to any of those nations instead of the United States?  If they’re serious about exploiting their oil wealth then they will cut deals with oil companies that result in a profit for the oil companies.  Otherwise oil stays in the ground that would otherwise go to market.

b4 it has been invaded, it was ranked the 4th oil producer or exporter in the world.

Iraq’s peak production was realized just before its invasion of Kuwait. In July 1990,output reached 3.5 mbd, before exports were halted by an international boycott.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45456.pdf

Iraq’s oil production was well below its capacity during the sanctions regime.  Current oil production is slightly below pre-war levels.
It would be delightful if you would cite your source, for that claim regarding Iraq’s oil production is doubtful.  It would be nice to place it into some historical context.

Iraq does get benefit from its oil if it is pumped out of the ground and sold.

pumped and sold by whom?

It doesn’t matter, so long as Iraq charges for it somewhere along the way.  If it doesn’t get pumped out of the ground then the best Iraq can do is collect money on pumping rights and the like.  That won’t work for long if they don’t come through on their end of the bargain and eventually permit production.
Since the United States has the chief vested interest in the success of a free Iraq under its representative national government, it would make sense for Iraq to favor U.S. companies for the work, though various European companies might also serve as good partners (companies in European nations might be less willing to make the investment based on the lack of security, whereas the U.S. has the aforementioned vested interest in Iraq’s security).

If you were an Iraqi leader would you want your nation’s oil to remain in the ground or would you want to make some arrangement to attract foreign investment and infrastructure to help make use of your nation’s biggest economic engine?

that was being done before without bush’s hands in.

Right.  You mean when Hussein was buying tons of arms from the Soviet Union and France based on future oil revenues.
Or is that what you meant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

erasmusinfinity - 18 May 2008 03:25 PM

I never said that there was any excuse for any particular act.  I think that you missed the point of my words and that we are pretty much on the same page when it comes to the injustice of people being killed in the Middle East.

I don’t think we are on the same page since you seem to disguisingly think that oppressed people should either be peaceful in protesting or accept their oppression. ...Well, your bush is not an oppressed guy, yet, he seems to believe it is ok for him to kill, murder and steal from the defenseless though his Jesus CLEARLY commands him to protect them, him being the “Leader of the Free World”?! and he comes from an all american wealthy family?! I am forced to stand up for is-c$#@ though I’d probably be the first to disolve it if I had the opportunity by saying blaming all problems of the world on it is rather an unreasonable illogical (to put it nicely) way of interpreting what is going on.

It is incorrect to refer to an Arab attack against civilian Americans as a “retaliation” for global capitalism.  Particularly when the individuals perpetrating the retributive acts are, as I said before, global capitalists.  As I suggested in my last post, there is a logical error in equating the US with global capitalism. 

If they were global capitalists why they went on suicide missions? global capitalists are not known to comit such acts. & the US is the Leader of the Free World.

I also don’t see that there is any moral legitimacy in killing others for the sake of retribution, whether enacted by Americans or persons living in the Middle East.  Such would be an act of terror regardless of who committed it.

I agree.

I did not say that Arabs are poor or ignorant.  I said that there are poor, uneducated and ignorant people in the middle east and that they are being deceived into believing that the US, western relativism, infidels, etc. are their enemy.

I agree but on the other hand, bush is most definitly their enemi, I’d even upgrade that to stating that he is even the US troops enemi. At least his dad stopped just as soon as he saw he should.

There is plenty of poverty and ignorance that is shared in all corners of the globe, and I certainly agree that ignorance is to be found at home in the US just as it is abroad.  Hence my point about ”islam and christianity.” Religious beliefs polarize people globally and prevent provincial majorities from correctly understanding globally humane issues. People in the Middle East and people in the United Stated both need to look as much inside their own societies as they need to look outside of them if they want to find the keys to the world’s socio-economic problems.

AGREED, also I would like to point out that Ignorance is today’s problem not religion, and what causes it is not people’s un-education or povrety but rather their in-ability & un-willingness to align with their own conscience, there really is only One Conscience. There are highly educated and very very wealthy people who are just as ignorant as the ones you’ve mentioned.

Thank you for clarifying.

Daisy - 19 May 2008 12:59 PM

I don’t think we are on the same page since you seem to disguisingly think that oppressed people should either be peaceful in protesting or accept their oppression. ...

Well, I guess we are not on the same page if you believe that violence is a constructive way of dealing with problems.  If you do, I see no legitimacy in your grievances against American military aggression.  Violence begets violence.  When you act violently toward someone, you can expect them to act violently in return.

We are on the same page with regards to the matter that people should not accept oppression.

Daisy - 19 May 2008 12:59 PM

Well, your bush is not an oppressed guy

Either was Osama Bin Laden.  Either were any of the 9/11 hijackers.

Daisy - 19 May 2008 12:59 PM

If they were global capitalists why they went on suicide missions? global capitalists are not known to comit such acts. & the US is the Leader of the Free World.

I wouldn’t refer to the 9/11 hijackers as venture capitalists.  But I would certainly characterize Osama Bin Laden and El Qaida as being built upon a foundation of global financial investments.  If you take a deep hard look within the Middle East you will find a much larger scale of internal economic exploitation than can be found anywhere in the west.  Hence the very very very rich class of people that you refer to.

The 9/11 hijackers were solidly middle class.  Not oppressed in any way.  They were driven by a religiously fueled ideology that influenced them into commiting murder.

I also don’t see that there is any moral legitimacy in killing others for the sake of retribution, whether enacted by Americans or persons living in the Middle East.  Such would be an act of terror regardless of who committed it.

I agree.

Then we are on the same page about that?

I agree but on the other hand, bush is most definitly their enemi, I’d even upgrade that to stating that he is even the US troops enemi. At least his dad stopped just as soon as he saw he should.

I don’t think much of George Bush either, but if I can only reiterate the main point of my first post to this thread. The source of economic oppression in the Middle East (or in South or Central America, or in Africa, or in East Asia, or anywhere else in the world that is direly poor) is not some other enemy nation state or some other foreign culture.  It lies in the economic apparatus that is quite simply “global.”

AGREED, also I would like to point out that Ignorance is today’s problem not religion, and what causes it is not people’s un-education or povrety but rather their in-ability & un-willingness to align with their own conscience, there really is only One Conscience. There are highly educated and very very wealthy people who are just as ignorant as the ones you’ve mentioned.

I tend to believe that the source of the ignorance that we are talking about is primarily religious, both in the “christian” world and in the “islamic” world.  One can, of course, be wealthy and heavily schooled and still be ignorant of certain very pertinent things.  In the case of current affairs in the Middle East, control of economic resources may very well explain the most base motivations for human greed.  But this does not explain the capacity for large populations of humans to polarize so readily into in tribal groups (muslims should stick together against the infidels) and to just as readily dehumanize members of the outside group.

Nor can economics alone explain the state of human thought that leads one to enact their rage via “holy” violence.  There is anger and there is the way that we deal with our anger.  I can not begin to imagine, in my wildest of imaginations, the possibility of an atheist suicide bomber.  And to be fair, in this day and age I can’t even imagine a christian one.

Bryan - 19 May 2008 10:57 AM

No.  I was just trying to get you to answer the question.

As if you didn’t know who I (or anybody else who is against the war) was going to name.

They need the money.

apparently despite bush’s wealth, he needs it more than them. And doesn’t this make him that much poorer and more miserable than they. Jee, I never thought about it this way, I think bush is indeed a beggar, just a different kind.

I don’t assume that Iraqi oil stays in the ground totally.  I simply note that Iraq is producing well below its capacity,

The US has lots of homelesses being a SuperPower, and many more are on social security when they can actually hold a job, we don’t see iraqis coming along and telling us that they can show us how to get the homelesses out of homelessness or how the lazies can be kicked back to work. Doesn’t the problem of homelessness (and that is only one, there are more if you want to head that way) in the US constitutes a serious barrier that prevents the US from producing well above its capacity in all fields?

largely because of sabotage by terrorists and the (until recently) militia control of Basra.  Plus the fact that Iraq does not have the means to produce its own oil production infrastructure.  They will have to rely on some form of foreign investment.

B4 bush highcked that country, its oil production was doing just fine in comparaison to global level of worldwide production.

They can look to Russia or Iran or even China, I suppose--but why should they go to any of those nations instead of the United States? 

Now you’re being really cute and I don’t care if I get toasted for saying that. I agree on this, I’d pick the US over the others any day, anywhere and anytime.

Iraq’s peak production was realized just before its invasion of Kuwait. In July 1990,output reached 3.5 mbd, before exports were halted by an international boycott.
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/45456.pdf

Iraq’s oil production was well below its capacity during the sanctions regime.  Current oil production is slightly below pre-war levels.
It would be delightful if you would cite your source, for that claim regarding Iraq’s oil production is doubtful.  It would be nice to place it into some historical context.

I don’t have any source other than the news. Again, I remember I picked it up around the time of Operation Desert storm.

It doesn’t matter, so long as Iraq charges for it somewhere along the way.  If it doesn’t get pumped out of the ground then the best Iraq can do is collect money on pumping rights and the like.  That won’t work for long if they don’t come through on their end of the bargain and eventually permit production.
Since the United States has the chief vested interest in the success of a free Iraq under its representative national government, it would make sense for Iraq to favor U.S. companies for the work, though various European companies might also serve as good partners (companies in European nations might be less willing to make the investment based on the lack of security, whereas the U.S. has the aforementioned vested interest in Iraq’s security).

Speaking about collecting money on pumping rights, I think saudi arabia was cornered into a similar situation after desert storm, that was due to the high cost of the US protection against a possible iraqi aggression. The US charged the saudis for every ‘spoon’ used, every pair of boot a soldier wore, etc. by the time they got to the over all main balance, saudia as a part of the payment plan, had no choice but to be pressured to charge only the minimum it can for the oil it sells the US. I don’t know for how long that was supposed to remain in effect.

Right.  You mean when Hussein was buying tons of arms from the Soviet Union and France based on future oil revenues.
Or is that what you meant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_sales_to_Iraq

speaking of debts or deficit, do you know how much of debt the US is in right now?

erasmusinfinity - 19 May 2008 06:46 PM

Daisy - 19 May 2008 12:59 PM

I don’t think we are on the same page since you seem to disguisingly think that oppressed people should either be peaceful in protesting or accept their oppression. ...

Well, I guess we are not on the same page if you believe that violence is a constructive way of dealing with problems.  If you do, I see no legitimacy in your grievances against American military aggression.  Violence begets violence.  When you act violently toward someone, you can expect them to act violently in return.

[bold added]

That’ right, hence 9/11 (though there is a very generous data all over the places directly incriminating bush in it). But then again, what you said, you meant only in one way not 2 ways street… meaning the US has the right to retaliate using violence but not anybody else, and no if I condoned the use of violence I wouldn’t be on this board to begin with. Or is the mere act of expressing one’s outrage and disapproval for an illegal criminal destructive and bombing invasion by someone who at the same time claims to be installing a “democracy”,,, is a proof that they are violent?? Like the french say “chacun voit midi a sa porte.” which translates to “Everyone IS Able to see noon from their own door step.”

re-read yourself:

you wrote on - 18 May 2008 07:38 AM

We must also remember that there have been countless populations in other nations and across history who have been oppressed to similar and much greater extents and who have not behaved accordingly.  For better or for worse, some have responded with peaceful and nonviolent protests and some have simply accepted oppression.

If we are to work constructively to improve the global situation it is essential that we examine the roles that islam AND christianity play in both politically polarizing large global populations, and also that we examine the underlying belief systems that lead to certain specified actions.  It is not difficult to make connections between specified religious beliefs and specified behaviors.

In reply to the insinuations you are making above and below I’d say “Don’t judge someone til you walk in their shoes for at least a mile.”

I have to run, I will finish my reply later.

Daisy - 20 May 2008 11:54 AM

you meant only in one way not 2 ways street… meaning the US has the right to retaliate using violence but not anybody else, and no if I condoned the use of violence I wouldn’t be on this board to begin with.

No.  I meant it as a two way street.  The US, Bush… or whoever… had no moral right to invade or attack Iraq.  I won’t go into the history of western imperialism or the history of US events within the middle east.  No doubt there is much for the West and for the US to be ashamed of, just as there is much for the various tribal populations currently residing in the region to be ashamed of.  But I think that it is childish to point fingers and say “he started it.” The point is that all parties need to stop it.

Or is the mere act of expressing one’s outrage and disapproval for an illegal criminal destructive and bombing invasion by someone who at the same time claims to be installing a “democracy”,,, is a proof that they are violent??

Are you talking about the second Iraq war (1), or the historical events in the Middle East that proceeded 9/11 (2)?

1. The invasion of Iraq was wrong.  I said it many times before and I say it again.
2. 9/11 is not justifiable as a retributive act of violence.  Such violence is not justifiable in and of itself, and the act was not rationally any sort of retribution.

Daisy - 20 May 2008 11:54 AM

In reply to the insinuations you are making above and below I’d say “Don’t judge someone til you walk in their shoes for at least a mile.”

I am not interested in judging anyone.
I am interested in people not being killed.
I am interested in people not being oppressed.
I am interested in both of these matters quite globally.

I must say that you seem quite stubborn in putting me on the other side of a fence to which I do not think that I belong.

Perhaps there is a tribal/cultural bias on your part?
Perhaps it is indicative of a militancy that is religiously informed??
Perhaps this is suggestive the sort of the sort of thinking that is at play in the larger picture of global divisiveness?

No doubt there is much for the West and for the US to be ashamed of, just as there is much for the various tribal populations currently residing in the region to be ashamed of.  But I think that it is childish to point fingers and say “he started it.” The point is that all parties need to stop it.

You should really try and get this straight Erasmus, it’s really not very complicated:

The U.S. rulers are engaged in a criminal war/occupation, having ‘preemptively’ assaulted a nation on the other side of the world from which it faced no threat whatsoever. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s have been murdered in the wake of this assault. On top of that, the Washington has successfully plunged Iraq into a bloody and unprecedented civil war along religious lines, in which the occupier - in classic imperialist fashion - plays of one side against the other.

Perhaps if Iraqi militias were at the same time occupying large cities in the U.S. and periodically massacring its citizens, while arming Catholics to shoot Protestants and Jews (and vice versa), your phoney ‘even-handedness’ would be a little more credible. 

Only one ‘side’ needs to ‘stop it’ i.e. the illegal agressors must withdraw immediately. No one needs to paint the the anti-U.S. forces in Iraq as ‘nature’s noblemen’ in order to point out that they have every right to resist the occupation, and every blow they strike against legitimate miltary targets is fully justified.

And note the added touch of sneering imperialist nomenclature - writing off the Iraqis as merely ‘tribal populations currently residing the region’… referring to a country that, within living memory, represented one of the most advanced and most secular cultural and educational centres of the Arab world.

Disgusting.