wars by the west

[True_Avery]

Do we see innocent Muslims as legitimate targets in war? Have Christians sought to kill anyone who wasn't one? Well maybe back when they were stupid, the Crusades. But certainly things such as September 11, suicide bombings, they are against the Quran, it speaks out against killing yourself and certainly people do not listen to the whole picture. They take one quote and use it to justify their actions while ignoring the entire passage, quoting out of context.

I see that in christianity all the time, and in America as a whole on the news almost every day as reasons to justify a new law or bill trying to be passed. People interpret passages out of the holy books and create their own idiology out of it, justifying any act of political or physicial violence upon other people.

 

And as far as I am concerned, our bombing of Iraq in the first few weeks of the war (Which killed a few thousand civilians and put many towns into distress or plain rubble) is a good example of us attacking civilians to prove a political/religious/military or whatever reason for being in the war in the first place. Civilians die in conflicts and neither side is ever more to blame for it. I would still say to this day that our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inhuman and crimes against humanity even though we did them right after finding out about the Holocaust.

 

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. They are willing to die for their cause just as much as are troops are. Does that make them possibily more patriotic than our troops? Does that make them that much more loyal to their beliefs because they are willing to kill themselves for their idea of what right is? Looking at these people simply as killers and murderers is not the way this should go. Everybody is a still human, and thus follows what they believe to be the right and wrong. Right and wrong is different for every single person, even though society likes to think it has the right way to run things. This applies to everybody from a Nazi to a child learning right and wrong. Yes, I said Nazi. Gonna hit me now?

 

Freedom. Freedom to believe what you want, freedom to say what you want. I do not support terrorists in any shape or form, from the muslim extremists to our own American Military. If we want to spread freedom around the world, I think the first step to take is try and understand why people think differently from us and how that can be used to help bring humanity together as a whole.

 

Do not be so quick to judge and say that just because you are on one side that it is instantly more right and justified than the other.

 

Anyway, thats my 2 cents.

[GarfieldJL]

But certainly things such as September 11, suicide bombings, they are against the Quran, it speaks out against killing yourself and certainly people do not listen to the whole picture. They take one quote and use it to justify their actions while ignoring the entire passage, quoting out of context.

 

 

To be perfectly blunt that isn't entirely true, there is something called a Jihad where it is stated in the Quran (Koran or however you want to spell it) that if you die in Jihad (doesn't matter if it is suicide bombing), kill infidels (includes butchering children) you go to paradise with 50 beautiful virgins to serve your every want. At least that's how it can and is interpretted by Muslim extremists. Also this isn't just taking one passage, it is actually clearly stated that in the Quran in a manner that it can be construed that this is the correct interpretation.

 

To make matters worse the extremists also brainwash children at an early age to want to be suicide bombers when they grow up, to them life is cheap.

 

Muslim extremist groups like Al-Qaeda are terrified that the United States will succeed in Iraq. Cause if the United States manages to get a stable republic in Iraq it will deal them a serious blow when it comes to recruitment to say the least, furthermore it may cause internal problems in Iran and Syria whose governments support terrorism.

[Totenkopf]

...you go to paradise with 50 beautiful virgins to serve your every want.

 

I'd always heard 72. Frankly, 2-3 women are bad enough (sorry gals), but 50 or 72 may be more than they can handle. Would make for some interesting cat fights

 

On a more serious note, the atomic bombings of Japan were less of a crime than the alternative of mass starvation. Conditional surrender was about as likely as if the Nazi's had floated the idea they'dve surrendered as long as Hitler et al went unpunished. Unclear about the link between the Holocaust and Hiroshima/Nagasaki, as the Japanese didn't commit those atrocities.

[Nancy Allen``]

And as far as I am concerned, our bombing of Iraq in the first few weeks of the war (Which killed a few thousand civilians and put many towns into distress or plain rubble) is a good example of us attacking civilians to prove a political/religious/military or whatever reason for being in the war in the first place.

 

Jup, Iraq was bad, but I haven't heard an instance of something along the lines of "The target is the town of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be gunned down. They are unarmed". I think they were striking at military targets in civillian areas, like your local National Guard or reserve forces depot, as opposed to something with absolutely no military value.

 

I would still say to this day that our bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were inhuman and crimes against humanity even though we did them right after finding out about the Holocaust.

 

I'll put this again as it cannot be given enough emphesis: war is hell. The evidence is right before you. With Hiroshima, certainly scaring the Japanese into surrendering, as opposed to a repeat of Normandy or leaving it be, was a monsterous thing to do, I'm not sure if I would say monsterous in terms of scale or in terms of it being a horrendous act, there arn't easy answers to what was done. War is hell.

 

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. They are willing to die for their cause just as much as are troops are. Does that make them possibily more patriotic than our troops? Does that make them that much more loyal to their beliefs because they are willing to kill themselves for their idea of what right is?

 

When you want to look at what people who have not gone through any formal military training do, I think you only have to look as far as whether or not they take the fight to those who cannot defend themselves against such an attack. The Iraqi Insurgents for example, their main focus is driving out the invading forces and their attacks would be centred on American military. They commit acts on civillians and where civillians would be harmed as well, and that is wrong. September 11 on the other hand, unlike the USS Cole or the Beirut barracks this was simple murder of civillians in peace time. The Pentagon, depending on which target was planned for Flight 93, military targets. What military value did the World Trade Centre have?

 

Looking at these people simply as killers and murderers is not the way this should go. Everybody is a still human, and thus follows what they believe to be the right and wrong. Right and wrong is different for every single person, even though society likes to think it has the right way to run things.

 

Society by and large live by and follow the rules that govern it. Most people don't go postal over things they disagree with and those who do should be dealt with so that people, including your friends and family, will not be harmed and they do not have to have that fear.

 

This applies to everybody from a Nazi to a child learning right and wrong. Yes, I said Nazi. Gonna hit me now?

 

Well there goes me trying to avert Godwin's Law. I think a few people would do more than that for such a comment, but for me, we look at the typical Nazi soldier and they really arn't that diffirent to the Allied forces. The evil lay with people such as the SS Gestapo, who were really not soldiers but thugs given guns and athority under Hitler. The people who desecrated historical places and archealogical digs to promote Nazi propoganda. The people who brought Hitler to power through tactics similar to Alphonse Capone, and of course Hitler himself.

 

If we want to spread freedom around the world, I think the first step to take is try and understand why people think differently from us and how that can be used to help bring humanity together as a whole.

 

Well said. I'd take it a step further and in terms of the conflict make the reason for it out of the equation, make the source of it all irrelevent. Example? Okay, Israel, the conflict over the land. To use a specific example the Goland Heights, a patch of land that war had been waged over for years. What if Israel were to make the Goland Heights irrelevent, by say bombing the place? That way the Syrians would no longer want it and Israel gets to keep it, making them very happy. How would they get away with it? Israel's policy of first strike against threats to their country, such as bioloigical weapons, that had been 'detected' in the Goland Heights. It's convuluted but you get the idea.

 

To be perfectly blunt that isn't entirely true, there is something called a Jihad where it is stated in the Quran (Koran or however you want to spell it) that if you die in Jihad (doesn't matter if it is suicide bombing), kill infidels (includes butchering children) you go to paradise with 50 beautiful virgins to serve your every want.

 

That's one interpretation of Jihad. Another is total submission, commitment to a cause. Similar to Christians completely surrendering to God.

 

I think a large part of the problem, for any religion, is whether to interpret what is written as stories of religion and the lessons we should take away from them, or these stories telling us this is how it should be. The lessons themselves would come under scrutiny for the possibility of them being the wrong one. 'Those who do not follow this religion shall surely be put to death' as opposed to 'do not steal'. Even then, are we talking about not getting into heaven, paradise, or going out to kill anyone who doesn't follow that religion?

 

Muslim extremist groups like Al-Qaeda are terrified that the United States will succeed in Iraq.

 

Ditto for Israel, as it shows that Democracy works in the Middle East and as well as the points you made, if America succeeds in Iraq that's further evidence.

 

I'd always heard 72. Frankly, 2-3 women are bad enough (sorry gals), but 50 or 72 may be more than they can handle.

 

You called it down, so...men should just get one woman. A Bastila or a Handmaiden or a Mira, or a Mara or a Padme, who could break their kneecap with just the right amount of thumb pressure.

 

Yeah, 72. Sounds like hell to me, after two or three they'd want a woman who knew what she was doing.

[GarfieldJL]

The Japanese did commit attrocities during WW II.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre

[True_Avery]

Jup, Iraq was bad, but I haven't heard an instance of something along the lines of "The target is the town of Ab Nabi ****, all men women and children are to be gunned down. They are unarmed". I think they were striking at military targets in civillian areas, like your local National Guard or reserve forces depot, as opposed to something with absolutely no military value.

True, and I meant it more in the way they will always be in the crossfire in our wars and battles opposed to us gunning them down. We arn't choosing them specifically, but large amounts of civilians still die even when we honestly try to avoid them.

 

I'll put this again as it cannot be given enough emphesis: war is hell. The evidence is right before you. With Hiroshima, certainly scaring the Japanese into surrendering, as opposed to a repeat of Normandy or leaving it be, was a monsterous thing to do, I'm not sure if I would say monsterous in terms of scale or in terms of it being a horrendous act, there arn't easy answers to what was done. War is hell.

Agreed.

 

When you want to look at what people who have not gone through any formal military training do, I think you only have to look as far as whether or not they take the fight to those who cannot defend themselves against such an attack. The Iraqi Insurgents for example, their main focus is driving out the invading forces and their attacks would be centred on American military. They commit acts on civillians and where civillians would be harmed as well, and that is wrong. September 11 on the other hand, unlike the USS Cole or the Beirut barracks this was simple murder of civillians in peace time. The Pentagon, depending on which target was planned for Flight 93, military targets. What military value did the World Trade Centre have?

I agree with you. But we also attacked Iraq back with bombs and explosives the first few days of battle. I would think, from their perspective, the civilians saw us as a huge threat and terrorists coming in and attacking their country. Now, I understand that around this day most of them see us as being there to help, even though they do not like us there. The insurgents and fighters throughout Iraq who are targeting Americans either do it for the fun of it, or do it to get us out of their country as we were the terrorists to their lives first. The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.

 

Well there goes me trying to avert Godwin's Law. I think a few people would do more than that for such a comment, but for me, we look at the typical Nazi soldier and they really arn't that diffirent to the Allied forces. The evil lay with people such as the SS Gestapo, who were really not soldiers but thugs given guns and athority under Hitler. The people who desecrated historical places and archealogical digs to promote Nazi propoganda. The people who brought Hitler to power through tactics similar to Alphonse Capone, and of course Hitler himself.

I'm glad I am not the only one that can see it like that. By the way, what are Godwin's laws? I know one of them is a Nazi one, but from others I know about it simply looks like a set of stuff to win or lose a debate... to which it is impossible to win a debate because if you could it would be a competition.

 

Ditto for Israel, as it shows that Democracy works in the Middle East and as well as the points you made, if America succeeds in Iraq that's further evidence.

But what if it doesn't, as a simply hypothetical question? If we cannot manage to get democracy going in the places we go to liberate, should we continue to try and liberate at the cost of more civilian and american lives? It's a hard question to me. People should have the option of freedom, but a vendetta to get democracy to all corners of the world sounds similar to the Soviet Union trying to spread communism as far as it could go.

 

You called it down, so...men should just get one woman. A Bastila or a Handmaiden or a Mira, or a Mara or a Padme, who could break their kneecap with just the right amount of thumb pressure.

 

Yeah, 72. Sounds like hell to me, after two or three they'd want a woman who knew what she was doing.

Haha, yeah. I'd think that would get dull after the first few.

[JediMaster12]

Do we see innocent Muslims as legitimate targets in war? Have Christians sought to kill anyone who wasn't one? Well maybe back when they were stupid, the Crusades. But certainly things such as September 11, suicide bombings, they are against the Quran, it speaks out against killing yourself and certainly people do not listen to the whole picture. They take one quote and use it to justify their actions while ignoring the entire passage, quoting out of context.

Ah but we have something that the insurgents and terrorists do not recognize at all: Geneva convention. It is rather an unspoken rule that to target civilians in a manner like that of Sept 11 is abhorrent.

However we have to look at other incidents that we claimed were acts of butchery and yet we argue over the legitimacy of it. Such an example is the slaughter at Mai Lai where US soldiers killed civilians. Now the reasoning behind it was the fact that in Vietnam, you didn't know who was your friend or the enemy. Of course I have not had to serve so maybe I don't understand the circumstances since I see it right now at a moral standpoint that it is wrong. If you want to be bold, it could be considered an act of revenge since we have the stories about POWs in Vietnam and what the Vietcong used in terms of tactics.

 

But we also attacked Iraq back with bombs and explosives the first few days of battle. I would think, from their perspective, the civilians saw us as a huge threat and terrorists coming in and attacking their country. Now, I understand that around this day most of them see us as being there to help, even though they do not like us there.

Yes and did you know that the people who were dancing in the streets of Baghdad were not people who lived there? They were actually Kurds from the north recruited by the Amer. soldiers. The people of Baghdad were too terrified to come out of their homes.

[GarfieldJL]

I agree with you. But we also attacked Iraq back with bombs and explosives the first few days of battle. I would think, from their perspective, the civilians saw us as a huge threat and terrorists coming in and attacking their country. Now, I understand that around this day most of them see us as being there to help, even though they do not like us there. The insurgents and fighters throughout Iraq who are targeting Americans either do it for the fun of it, or do it to get us out of their country as we were the terrorists to their lives first. The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.

 

 

That explains the people pulling down statues of Saddam and cheering in the street. Seriously, Iraqis are more afraid of the insurgents than they are of US troops. Even when we invaded most Iraqis were glad that we took down Saddam.

[Nancy Allen``]

The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.

 

I think it was because of the failure in finding Bin Laden, part of the reason was to take our minds off that and instead have us concentrate on Iraq. In that sense, maybe a little bit of Phantom Menace there, maybe Bush is a bit of a Star Wars fan, I'm not going to draw the comparison, someone else can.

 

By the way, what are Godwin's laws? I know one of them is a Nazi one, but from others I know about it simply looks like a set of stuff to win or lose a debate... to which it is impossible to win a debate because if you could it would be a competition.

 

"As a thread goes on, the possibility of a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis approaches one". It's something that is used, and abused, where the debate is over whenever it was mentioned and whoever brought it up had lost the debate. For example, making a comparison to Bush and Hitler, well the perspective of such a comparison ranges from a loss of perspective to a lack of grasp on history to a flame against Bush or someone who supports Bush, in this example. A couple of forums even block the use of Nazi and Hitler, not allowing you to post if you use those words.

 

But what if it doesn't, as a simply hypothetical question? If we cannot manage to get democracy going in the places we go to liberate, should we continue to try and liberate at the cost of more civilian and american lives?

 

That's part of the reason the Insurgents and Al Qaeda forces who have rocked up to Iraq to kill Americans are fighting, in the hopes to defeat America and make them fail in their bid to end the bloodshed. It would be a huge political victory if America had caused the problem and then cannot fix it.

 

People should have the option of freedom, but a vendetta to get democracy to all corners of the world sounds similar to the Soviet Union trying to spread communism as far as it could go.

 

I wouldn't call it a vendetta. Saddam was a monster, no question, but by the same token America could be seen as imposing their views on the Iraqis.

[True_Avery]

I think it was because of the failure in finding Bin Laden, part of the reason was to take our minds off that and instead have us concentrate on Iraq. In that sense, maybe a little bit of Phantom Menace there, maybe Bush is a bit of a Star Wars fan, I'm not going to draw the comparison, someone else can.

Hmm, interesting.

 

"As a thread goes on, the possibility of a comparison to Hitler and the Nazis approaches one". It's something that is used, and abused, where the debate is over whenever it was mentioned and whoever brought it up had lost the debate. For example, making a comparison to Bush and Hitler, well the perspective of such a comparison ranges from a loss of perspective to a lack of grasp on history to a flame against Bush or someone who supports Bush, in this example. A couple of forums even block the use of Nazi and Hitler, not allowing you to post if you use those words.

That seems a little silly, and in my opinion a little immature. We need to accept what happened in the past as fact, and fact can be used as compairisons to other facts or beliefs to prove a point. Nazi Germany was indeed a terrible force with taking over Europe and the Holocaust, but one of the only reasons we really care so much about the Holocaust is that is it the largest documented genocide on record. Now, I could use what the Japanese did to China as an example, what al-Bashir is currently doing to Sudan, what Stalin did to Russia, and so on and so forth.

Now, I would not in any way compair Bush to Hitler. That is just crazy and I would agree that people who would go that far need to be watched. But banning the mere idea of Nazism from a forum is just ignorant I think. You should not ban people who mention Nazi's if the point is good, but instead be at least praised a little for daring to mention them in the first place.

Mentioning Nazi's makes you lose a debate... that is wrong in so many ways. For 1#, a debate cannot be won. It is a debate, not a competition and anybody who views it as such is simply being an internet troll. Like I said, there are so many other examples of people just as bad as the Nazis and banning the use of them in a debate is silly imo. I compaired a baby to a nazi to express that they are both human beings, not that the Nazi is Bush or any other strange and unfounded claim.

 

That's part of the reason the Insurgents and Al Qaeda forces who have rocked up to Iraq to kill Americans are fighting, in the hopes to defeat America and make them fail in their bid to end the bloodshed. It would be a huge political victory if America had caused the problem and then cannot fix it.

Good point.

 

That explains the people pulling down statues of Saddam and cheering in the street. Seriously, Iraqis are more afraid of the insurgents than they are of US troops. Even when we invaded most Iraqis were glad that we took down Saddam.

We Americans love to assume that Iraq was basically another holocaust before we arived to save the day. I will not deny that conflict was raging through out the country with Saddam helping it along, but the bloodshed was never as far and wide and intense as it is now after the Americans invaded. The insurgents, or at least the majority of them, are Iraqi people that took up arms to fight against the terrorists attacking their county and killing their people. To them the terrorists are us, the Americans. To us, the terrorists are them. It is a vicious circle that does nothing but cause bloodshed and loss. We both assume eachother to be freedom fighters, both our news spreading propaganda into the people to hate eachother more and more and fuel this "war" effort until one side gives up.

Believe it or not, but many places in Iraq (like Baghdad) were actually calm and peaceful. I will not say the country was at peace because it that would be a lie, but it was a lot safer. I will try and find the article with the quote saying close to "When Saddam was in power, I could walk down the street, talk to friends, and buy food. After the Americans attacked, I can no longer walk outside my house without hearing gunfire and fearing that I am next."

Sure, we got rid of Saddam. We are still there, people are still dieing, and it seems irrelevant at this point as the killing keeps going on despite him being in power or not.

 

Yes and did you know that the people who were dancing in the streets of Baghdad were not people who lived there? They were actually Kurds from the north recruited by the Amer. soldiers. The people of Baghdad were too terrified to come out of their homes.

I wouldn't doubt it. I would be terrified out of my wits if a group of people from overseas bombed my next door neighbor and city, then came in with tanks and guns telling us "Hey, we bombed you... but we are here to save you from your bad leader and give you a brand new government system."

[JediMaster12]

The plan to take down the towers was probably planned by a select group of people and at first we were searching for them, but then is suddenly turned into all out battle with Iraq out of nowhere. Seems a little odd from both perspectives to me.

But why Afghanistan? From what I know, the people that hijacked those planes were Saudis. Why not go after the faction in Saudi Arabia? The answer is that Bush was in tight with the Saudis. I mean on a business level.

 

People should have the option of freedom, but a vendetta to get democracy to all corners of the world sounds similar to the Soviet Union trying to spread communism as far as it could go.

Do you remember Woodrow Wilson? Well he was the one who started this idea of making the world safe for democracy. His ideas are still prevalent today but people see America as arrogant. It is like the Communists saying that communism is the best way well aren't we trying to say that democracy is the best way?

[Nancy Allen``]

But why Afghanistan? From what I know, the people that hijacked those planes were Saudis. Why not go after the faction in Saudi Arabia?

 

Osama Bin Laden, leader of the ruling Taliban and boasting about the attacks, was in Afghanistan. I wonder if it's less a case of an arguement between the terrorists being Afghani or Saudi and more a case of the patchwork of Islamist terrorists, people who have joined the Taliban and Al Qaeda, such a large number of the terrorists and the training camps were in Afghanistan and rather than bomb the country most of the hijackers came from (whether or not Saudi Arabia supplied the terrorists or not) and instead liberate Afghanistan and deal a crippling blow to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

[GarfieldJL]

Osama Bin Laden, leader of the ruling Taliban and boasting about the attacks, was in Afghanistan. I wonder if it's less a case of an arguement between the terrorists being Afghani or Saudi and more a case of the patchwork of Islamist terrorists, people who have joined the Taliban and Al Qaeda, such a large number of the terrorists and the training camps were in Afghanistan and rather than bomb the country most of the hijackers came from (whether or not Saudi Arabia supplied the terrorists or not) and instead liberate Afghanistan and deal a crippling blow to the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

 

Osama Bin Laden was not the leader of the Taliban, he's the leader of Al Qaeda. He was friends with the leader of the Taliban whom refused to hand him over to the US after 9/11.

 

The rest of what you said, I agree with.