The Iraq war is distracting terrorists and making the US safer

[far_born]

This isn't an idea I'd defend, rather one I'd like to debate. I've seen it proposed that by bringing the fight to Iraq the terrorists are now fighting an armed force instead of the US civilian population, hence we are safer now.

I'd like to see some evidence to support this idea.

Certainly, there seems to be a significant and not unexpected presence of Al Quaeda in Iraq. The breakdown in police supervision, economic upheaval and disarray has created an ideal breeding ground for terrorism. So I'm not surprised they are there. Why wouldn't they be?

But I fail to see any evidence that we are safer because of the opening up of a new recruiting ground and raison d'etre for Al Quaeda.

I understand there may be some slight variations on this theory, so the adherents are welcome to clarify if they want to restate.

[John Mace]

Someone started a thread exactly like this a month or two ago. I don't remember the thread title, but a little searching will probably bring it up easily.

[glee]

Originally posted by far_born
This isn't an idea I'd defend, rather one I'd like to debate. I've seen it proposed that by bringing the fight to Iraq the terrorists are now fighting an armed force instead of the US civilian population, hence we are safer now.


This assumes there is a fixed number of terrorists.
However experience shows that certain conditions can easily create loads of terrorists.
Sadly the US (and the UK) being seen as occupying Iraq illegally fits in that category...

[Avenger]

Originally posted by glee
This assumes there is a fixed number of terrorists.
However experience shows that certain conditions can easily create loads of terrorists.
Sadly the US (and the UK) being seen as occupying Iraq illegally fits in that category...

It also assumes that 'the terrorists' are a clearly defined and homogenous group who carry membership cards and attend regular conventions together to decide strategy and debate tactics. Sadly there are people in high up positions who seem to believe that this is so...

[Aldebaran]

If understand the OP well, this is supposed to be a debate on the Great Idea that by

invading a sovereign nation,
killing thousands of its citizens,
destroying its infrastructure, social structure and whatever that gets destroyed by bombs dropping for days and nights at cities and villages and at random,
leaving thousands of toy-looking splinterbombs for children to pick up and get killed or wounded,
creating such leak borders that the situation holds an open invitation for every single idiot with some terrorist mind to enter and create even more sorrow and destruction for the citizens,

The US and its citizens can lead a happy safe lucky life.

OK.

1. It was a good idea for those who by some miracle manage to sleep the sleep of the innocent with all that blood and sorrow - caused to people who have nothing to do with the US and its citizens - on their mind. Thinking that by some miracle nothing can ever harm the USA and its citizens again.


2. It was not such a good idea for those who are realistic enough to know that there shall be no "safety" from "terrorists" as long as bombs and other innocent tools - like sanctions that only killed a few million of innocents - are used to invade sovereign nations or to bring them otherwise under the -hypocritical- US dominance.
To give only one reason why there is no end to the recruiting in sight. There are of course several other factors playing their role in this deadly game.

I happend to defend the second view.

I can also guess that the families of the US soldiers who are or will be getting killed and wounded overthere, have also some particular ideas about it.


Salaam. A

[Milum]

The Iraq war is distracting terrorists and making the US safer

I don't know about distracting terrorists but lately it is certainly making Baghdad safer. The murder rate in Baghdad has been dropping for several months as the coalition re-establishes the social order.

And so today we find that the murder rate in Baghdad, a city of five million, is lower than the month rate of murders in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, respectively.

And still some paternalistic liberals believe that the Iraqis are not ready for self government.

Gee whiz! These people are better behaved than we are. :smack:

[far_born]

Originally posted by Milum
I don't know about distracting terrorists but lately it is certainly making Baghdad safer. The murder rate in Baghdad has been dropping for several months as the coalition re-establishes the social order.

And so today we find that the murder rate in Baghdad, a city of five million, is lower than the month rate of murders in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, respectively.

And still some paternalistic liberals believe that the Iraqis are not ready for self government.

Gee whiz! These people are better behaved than we are. :smack:
Ok, what are your sources for this factoid?
Here's a different portrayal of conditions in Baghdad.
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ibc23sep03.htm

[Stoneburg]

Due to the lack of central organisation of 'terrorists' I doubt they can be effectively distracted. It would seem to me like "The Iraq war is distracting Americans and making it easier for terrorists" would be more appropriate unfortunately.

Fundamentalist muslims should have an easier time recruiting people to the 'cause' now. Anti-American sentiments are on the rise world wide (I don't think people realise how much). This as a result of removing a regime that had no capability to mount a threat to the US, so in my opinion, it would be crazy to claim that the war has made the US safer. It seems to have been able to 'distract' a chunk of the US citisens from the financial deficit and some new laws and policies though.

[even sven]

I gotta agree that distracting terrorists isn't really a good reason to overthrow a nation and kill the inevitable civilians (or their soilders, for that matter), even if it did work

[jshore]

Originally posted by Milum
And still some paternalistic liberals believe that the Iraqis are not ready for self government.


And some paternalistic conservatives too. On the other hand, some liberals have been advocating a quicker transition. After all the Bush Administration (which I personally don't consider liberal) was atacked by Gingrich (http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/031207/nysu011a_1.html) for not turning over control to the Iraqis more quickly. (See also this (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/485487901.html?did=485487901&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&desc=The+World%3b+U.S.+Needs+to+Put+the+Iraqis+in+Charge,+Gingrich+Says%3b+Ex-+speaker%27s+remarks+draw+a+White+House+rebuke,+widening+a+rift+among+Republicans.) archive article summary in the LA Times.) Senator Hillary Clinton (who is certainly considered to be a liberal by many people, although she was actually pretty hawkish among the Dems on the issue of Iraq) stated (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A44036-2003Dec7&notFound=true) that she agreed with Gingrich (although this article does not make completely clear if her general agreement includes the specific issue of turning over control to the Iraqis more rapidly).

I also agree with far_born that you better be prepared to back up your claims about how safe Baghdad is, particularly in light of his cite.

[Sam Stone]

How high is the murder rate in Baghdad? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105954,00.html)

The opposing viewpoint (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/baghdad/iraq3.html?seemore=y)

[Apos]

I'm not sure we can trust statistics about things like murder rates in a place like Baghdad at this point. How would you get an accurate read in a place so disordered, where the police aren't a solidified or accepted force with solid statistical techniques in place?

[jshore]

By the way, welcome to the SDMB, far-born.

In regards to Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq at this point, which I agree would not be unexpected, what exactly is the evidence on this? I ask out of ignorance because I am really wondering whether or not there is much evidence that Al Qaeda itself is playing any sort of major role. (I have no doubt that some involved probably are sympathetic to Al Qaeda but I guess I am curious the extent to which the organization itself is likely to be directly involved and coordinating attacks there.) I did a quick search and found this (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/30/sprj.irq.alqaeda.weapons/) recent story, which suggests some connection, but some al quaeda literature and videos alone hardly makes a very strong connection.

[far_born]

jshore,

I don't think Al Quaeda orchestrating everything, but the style of some of the suicide attacks and recent finding of some Al Quaeda literature seems to indicate a definite presence to me. Probably providing, intelligence, training, and international connections.


I'm betting my assessment isn't too different from your own.

[Avenger]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
How high is the murder rate in Baghdad? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105954,00.html)

The opposing viewpoint (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/baghdad/iraq3.html?seemore=y)

Interesting, although unsuprisingly sheds little light on the truth. Reassuring for the families of anyone shot by US troops though that they can be sure that their loved ones weren't murdered!

[Sam Stone]

Jshore asks,

In regards to Al Qaeda's presence in Iraq at this point, which I agree would not be unexpected, what exactly is the evidence on this?

Well, this is interesting...
Al-Qaeda videos found in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/30/sprj.irq.alqaeda.weapons/)


U.S. forces operating in the so-called Sunni Triangle -- the region of Iraq most loyal to captured former dictator Saddam Hussein -- found a significant weapons cache that included al Qaeda literature and videotapes, the U.S. military said Tuesday.
...
In addition to the al Qaeda literature and videos, the troops found nearly 8,000 rounds of ammunition; 160 mortar rounds and six mortar tubes; 43 rocket-propelled grenade launchers and 79 rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs); and 19 AK-47 assault rifles, as well as dozens of other weapons.

The military also said a significant amount of C4 and TNT explosives material was found, as was material to make improvised explosive devices -- the crudely made bombs that have killed or maimed dozens of coalition troops.

That was just one of several large weapons caches uncovered in Iraq in the last two days.

The military did not say how it found out about the weapons, but a member of the Iraq Governing Council has said in recent days that Saddam has begun giving interrogators information about weapons arsenals used by insurgents to attack coalition forces.


If this report is correct, then Saddam gave information about an official cache of weapons - which also happened to have a whole bunch of al-Qaeda training material in it. Very strange indeed. Does this mean Saddam was working with al-Qaeda before the war? Or did they link up afterwards? Or is there some other explanation?

I draw no conclusions, but stuff like this bears close watching.

[Avenger]

I am not familiar with 'Al Qaeda literature' and the report (not suprisingly) doesn't detail the ammount and nature of what was found.

However, if one was an arabic speaking insurgent wanting information on the manufacture of explosive devices/tactics for mounting attackes, etc, it does not seem to me to be very odd that one would have acquired material eminanting from the most prominent, well-organised and expert arabic speaking terrorist organisation of modern times at some point along the way.

[jayjay]

How...convenient...

[Sam Stone]

Avenger said:


However, if one was an arabic speaking insurgent wanting information on the manufacture of explosive devices/tactics for mounting attackes, etc, it does not seem to me to be very odd that one would have acquired material eminanting from the most prominent, well-organised and expert arabic speaking terrorist organisation of modern times at some point along the way.


Sure. That's a plausible explanation, which is why I said that it was unclear if these videos indicated that Iraq had been cooperating with al-Qaeda before the war, or whether they had just linked up now. Either way, it does indicate an al-Qaeda presence of some sort in Iraq, which was the question I was answering.

jayjay said:


How...convenient...

I'm sorry... is that a debate? A question? Or just an annoying distraction from the discussion?

[jayjay]

It's just a spontaneous expression of intense suspicion. If this administration made an official pronouncement that the sky was blue I'd be trying to figure out their angle.

And hey, if it's annoying you, Sam, I'll just consider that gravy.

[jshore]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
Well, this is interesting...
Al-Qaeda videos found in Iraq (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/12/30/sprj.irq.alqaeda.weapons/)

Yeah...that's the same story I linked to. It is interesting but it doesn't really answer the question in my mind as to whether you have al Qaeda pouring significant resources and people into Iraq or whether you have people who are looking to commit these terrorist acts and are turning to some literature and videos from al Qaeda for inspiration. I guess if they had a way of tracing where the weapons themselves came from, they might get a better idea.

The one thing I had missed on my first look at that story is the implication that the info on that cache may have come from interogations of Saddam himself.

[Aldebaran]

My guess is that this article must be as accurate as all the articles about "YESSS... We have found the WMD!! "

Salaam. A

[minty green]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
How high is the murder rate in Baghdad? (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,105954,00.html)

The opposing viewpoint (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/baghdad/iraq3.html?seemore=y) Jesus Christ, John Lott really is a piece of work, isn't he? Aren't you guys the least bit ashamed that he's on your side?

[Sam Stone]

Hey, that's why I thought it was important to find and post an opposing viewpoint. Lott's conclusions seem awfully fishy to me.

I'm starting to think of Lott as the Krugman of the right. Someone who once did good work, but has let his status as the darling of his side warp and twist him into a partisan spinner instead of a solid academic.

[minty green]

Before ending the hijack, I will say that the blog you linked to for the rebuttal is all kinds of entertaining, if you have any interest in Lott and his, um, scholarship. Thanks for that one.

[elucidator]

"Scholarship". Oh, you are a droll one, Mr. Green

[xenophon41]

I'm starting to think of Lott as the Krugman of the right. Someone who once did good work, but has let his status as the darling of his side warp and twist him into a partisan spinner instead of a solid academic.

Idiotic comment, since Lott was never anything more than a partisan spinner, and since Krugman's never been less than a solid academic. But nice "poisoning the well" technique. A suspicious mind (like mine) might think you cited Lott just so you could slight Krugman by making that comparison.

[far_born]

ok so I looked at the previous thread I think John Mace alluded to. Basically nobody seems to be willing to back this BS up. That's starting to be my conclusion from this thread too.

[Reeder]

If it is making us safer...

Why are we under Orange alert?
Why are we escorting and turning back airline flights?
Why were armed helicopters and rooftop snipers watching the new years festivities last night?

Yep..we are safer.

:rolleyes:

[adaher]

The idea that we are safer holds as much water as the idea that we are less safe, another idea touted by the anti-war crowd as fact.

There is little in the way of definitive evidence one way or another, so anyone making assertions one way or the other is doing it from personal belief, not from any reasoned analysis of the evidence.

[jshore]

Originally posted by adaher
There is little in the way of definitive evidence one way or another, so anyone making assertions one way or the other is doing it from personal belief, not from any reasoned analysis of the evidence.

Which of course leads us to the question: For all the money we are spending on the war in Iraq, could we not have spent that money on something else that would have unambiguously made us safer ... or at least that would have unambiguously not made us less safe?

[Sam Stone]

Which of course leads us to the question: For all the money we are spending on the war in Iraq, could we not have spent that money on something else that would have unambiguously made us safer ... or at least that would have unambiguously not made us less safe?


The administration line is this: The Middle East is a hornet's nest for terrorists. Dealing with the situation by swatting individual hornets as they come to sting you might help improve the symptoms temporarily, but unless you get rid of the nest, you're going to have to keep doing so forever. And in a world where weapons are getting increasingly powerful and increasingly easy to come by, this situation is bound to end in disaster.

So the administration has decided to get rid of the nest. Conditions for Arabs needs to be improved. The dictatorships have to go or reform, the Palestinian situation needs to be resolved, and the people of the middle east need to be turned into allies instead of enemies.

This is where Iraq fits in. With a crazy dictator in the middle of the problem, throwing money to Palestinian suicide bombers, firing missiles at Israel, invading his neighbors, and inciting Arabs to hatred of the west, the problem was intractable. But get rid of Saddam and replace him with a democracy, and you can win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and remove the need for Saddam's neighbors to build their own WMD.

Iran is another problem of the same scale as Saddam, with their heavy funding of Hezbollah and constant inciting of hatred against the west. But the U.S. is taking a very different tack with Iran, because it sees the potential for peaceful change. For example, the U.S. immediately offered large amounts of humanitarian assistance after the Earthquake, and breaking news yesterday is that the Bush administration has offered to send a delegation to Iran consisting of Elizabeth Dole and an unspecified Bush family member.

Also, the U.S. in Iraq did something very important for Iran - They disarmed MEK, which was a resistance group working against the Iranian government from within Iraq. As I understand it, the U.S. has actually worked with this group before, but now they have disarmed them and declared them a terrorist organization. This seems to me to be an overture to the Iranian government.

So that's the 'root cause' argument. Get rid of the root cause, and you have a chance to actually win the war on terror. Let the Middle East fester and turn the war into a policing issue of swatting the individual terrorists, and the problem never goes away.

Seems reaasonable to me.

[Aldebaran]

What seems reasonable to mee is putting all mass murderers and war criminals and common criminals on trial.

But of course that would include the current US president and the whole lot of his supportive administration. And if would even include all those who support there mass murdering "policy".

Salaam. A

[Ryan_Liam]

Give it a rest Alderbaran, we're the lesser of two evils.

[Aldebaran]

Who is "we" Ryan?

Salaam. A

[jayjay]

He's talking about the little Tony Blair dog that's chasing after the big GW dog like in those old Warner Brothers cartoons. "Ooh, George! George! Who're we conquerin' today, George?! Who're we conquerin' today?! (aside to the audience) I like George! He's TOUGH!"

[far_born]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
So the administration has decided to get rid of the nest. Conditions for Arabs needs to be improved. The dictatorships have to go or reform, the Palestinian situation needs to be resolved, and the people of the middle east need to be turned into allies instead of enemies. Ok and what does this have to do with Iraq?

This is where Iraq fits in. With a crazy dictator in the middle of the problem, throwing money to Palestinian suicide bombers, firing missiles at Israel, invading his neighbors, and inciting Arabs to hatred of the west, the problem was intractable. So without Saddam, people in the middle east won't hate the west?? Without Saddamm there will be no Palistinean sucide bombers?? I don't get it.

But get rid of Saddam and replace him with a democracy, and you can win the hearts and minds of Iraqis, and remove the need for Saddam's neighbors to build their own WMD. That's a big fat maybe (I'll believe when I see it) but what does that have to do with making the US safer? Iraq as far as we know, doesn't seem to have a large stockpile of WMD or really been a factor in others needing to build WMD. Furthermore, it's terrorism that most US'ians are worried about and Saddam's role seems to be insignificant in that regard.

So that's the 'root cause' argument. Get rid of the root cause, and you have a chance to actually win the war on terror. Let the Middle East fester and turn the war into a policing issue of swatting the individual terrorists, and the problem never goes away.

Seems reaasonable to me. Except you haven't really explained what the root cause is exactly, or why removing Saddam was the best way to go after it.

If you could explicitly restate the OP to suit your theory, that might help the discussion.

[far_born]

Originally posted by adaher
The idea that we are safer holds as much water as the idea that we are less safe, another idea touted by the anti-war crowd as fact.

There is little in the way of definitive evidence one way or another, so anyone making assertions one way or the other is doing it from personal belief, not from any reasoned analysis of the evidence. I'd say the US soldiers dying almost daily is a pretty good evidence that US citizens are less safe.

[adaher]

Which of course leads us to the question: For all the money we are spending on the war in Iraq, could we not have spent that money on something else that would have unambiguously made us safer ... or at least that would have unambiguously not made us less safe?

Well, one thing that wouldn't help much, but that many anti-war people keep on spouting, is that we should spend that money on homeland security. In other words, play strictly defense. All that accomplishes is to delay the inevitable. You cannot win a war unless you defeat the enemy. It would be like fighting Nazi Germany and Japan by keeping our troops at home and just parrying whatever attacks they made. We'd still be fighting today if we'd tried that strategy.

Did invading Iraq make us safer? I think it did in the long term. I happen to buy the theory that the only way to substantially reduce terrorism is to reform the Middle East, and Iraq, for a variety of reasons, was the best target by far.

I do think the invasion of Afghanistan made us safer almost immediately. The sharp reduction in successful terror attacks in 2002 bears that out, although there are of course other factors affecting that, like increased homeland security efforts, Israels' offensive in the Occupied Territories, and the fact that every nation in the world is now an enemy of Al Qaeda and arresting them left and right. But I think the most important reason for the decline in terrorism in 2002 was the disruption of Al Qaeda because of that invasion, and forcing them to concentrate their resources on their own defense rather than to offensive operations in the US.

I'd say the US soldiers dying almost daily is a pretty good evidence that US citizens are less safe.


Were Americans safer in 1944 than they were in 1942?

And how many Americans died in 2001 compared to 2002 and 2003?

Not that this means much, but it shows the folly of grabbing one piece of evidence and presenting it as indicative of the overall terror situation.

[far_born]

Originally posted by adaher
Did invading Iraq make us safer? I think it did in the long term. I happen to buy the theory that the only way to substantially reduce terrorism is to reform the Middle East, and Iraq, for a variety of reasons, was the best target by far.Yeah, Saddam was an easy target. What does that have to do with US safety?
Were Americans safer in 1944 than they were in 1942?

And how many Americans died in 2001 compared to 2002 and 2003?

Not that this means much, but it shows the folly of grabbing one piece of evidence and presenting it as indicative of the overall terror situation. Well, where's some counter evidence? I mean, is there any? Put it on the table. What other part other part of the "overall terror situation" really warrants the same attention?

It's not as if people dying is some random statistic grabbed arbitrarily. And it's not as if the war in Iraq can't be viewed as the direct result of those deaths. The connection is crystal clear.

We know without any shadow of a doubt that US citizens are dying from terrorist attacks and guerilla warfare in Iraq almost every day! Yet somehow, we're safer??? How???

Now it's nice of you to put forth your theories about how it's supposed to prevent or cure terrorism. But I'd like some evidence thank you very much.

[adaher]

Well duh, it only makes sense that soldiers would be more likely to die if they are you know, fighting terrorists?

But that fighting might be preventing the next 9/11.

Evidence? There is none one way or the other. If you want to cite deaths, I've already pointed out the obvious: less Americans have died in 2002 and 2003 than in 2001.

[Apos]

Memo to President of the United States: When you claim to be trying to distract terrorists, please do not hold a press conference in which you announce that you are trying to distract the terrorists. It might distract them from the distraction. End communication.

[Apos]

Idiotic comment, since Lott was never anything more than a partisan spinner, and since Krugman's never been less than a solid academic. But nice "poisoning the well" technique. A suspicious mind (like mine) might think you cited Lott just so you could slight Krugman by making that comparison.

Are you kidding?

I used to be a fan of Krugman's work.
I am not a fan of Bush's work, though any way Saddam ends up out of power is fine by me.

But Krugman has gone off the deep end in his neverending knee jerk obsession with Bush.

[Avenger]

Evidence? There is none one way or the other. If you want to cite deaths, I've already pointed out the obvious: less Americans have died in 2002 and 2003 than in 2001.

Actually, what you said before was that there were less terrorist attacks in 2002 than 2001 (no mention of any parameters concerning who were attacked and number of deaths).

Of course 2001 did see a very large single attack which claimed the lives of several thousand Americans (which now appears to be your measure) in one go. This might be skewing your figures a bit? Could you elaborate on the figures you are using and, perhaps, include years previous to 2001 to provide a more accurate snapshot?

[adaher]

I'm just throwing out a meaningless statistic, just as far born did. A citing of American military casualties is not an indication of whether we are safer or not. We were obviously safer in 1944 than in 1942, despite the fact that Americans were dying at high rates, for example.

There is no collection of stats that I know of that can prove whether or not we are safer as a result of the war on Iraq or even the war on terror overall. We won't know that for sure for at least another ten years.

[LeeG]

US forces aren't fighting an armed force,,they're receiving guerilla attacks and invading civilian areas hoping to get individuals and groups. It's a police action with a lot of doors broken in. Al Queda is the one group that organized under Bin Laden and moved out of Saudi Arabias discontent. But erasing Al Queda has nothing to do with holding together the major social elements in Iraq that the soldiers are battling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49227-2004Jan2.html

There are terrorist acts occuring in Iraq, there are terrorists in Iraq. But the A+B=C logic that says "we were under terrorist attack,,,we're attacking terrorist in Iraq" is stupid in the extreme.
The thing I wonder is how much responsibility the "architects" of the war have in it's reconstruction.
I'm part way through a book by former CIA director/former amabassador to Iran Richard Helms,,,in it he says something to the affect "our job was to carry out the presidents orders, it's up to the State Dept. to rebuild the gov'ts."
So back to the original question: in the realm of threats one can argue how safe we were or vulnerable we are and never have anything happen.

[Lissa]

Originally posted by Milum
And so today we find that the murder rate in Baghdad, a city of five million, is lower than the month rate of murders in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, or Boston, respectively.

This means nothing.

Canada's (http://canadaonline.about.com/library/weekly/aa072802a.htm) murder rate is three times lower than that of the US. In 2001, there were a grand total of 554 murders in the entire country. In New York City (http://www.nynewsday.com/nyc-murder0101,0,6189633.story?coll=nyc-topheadlines-left) the following year, there were 587 murders.

[jshore]

Originally posted by adaher
Well, one thing that wouldn't help much, but that many anti-war people keep on spouting, is that we should spend that money on homeland security. In other words, play strictly defense. All that accomplishes is to delay the inevitable. You cannot win a war unless you defeat the enemy. It would be like fighting Nazi Germany and Japan by keeping our troops at home and just parrying whatever attacks they made. We'd still be fighting today if we'd tried that strategy.

Well, the problem here is that you are making an analogy to a conventional war against a conventional enemy. All because the President and others have chosen to call this a "war" on terrorism does not mean it is a war in the conventional sense. So, it is unclear how effective it is to be fighting a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. I would argue that it is even less clear how effective it is to be fighting a conventional war against a nation that is only very tangentially connected to our unconventional enemy!

[sailor]

Originally posted by Milum
I don't know about distracting terrorists but lately it is certainly making Baghdad safer. The murder rate in Baghdad has been dropping for several months as the coalition re-establishes the social order. You mean the social order which was destroyed by the invasion. How nice.

I do not think the US is any safer but this is impossible to measure and is subjective. Actual deaths do not mean that much but if we are going to count deaths I do not understand why 9/11 counts and US casualties in Iraq don't. I would have to count them all and in that sense the picture ain't good.

Still, I do not think it is a valid measurement of safety. What is obvious to me is that the invasion of Iraq has exarcerbated anti-American sentiment and there are more terrorists trying harder. The recent cancellation of flights is an indication of this. The US government is spending considerably more effort in prevention.

The fact that due to neighborhood crime I have decided not to leave the house at night and to only go out during the day with an armed bodyguard does not mean the neighborhood is safer it just means I am safer at the cost of restricting my activities and spending effort and money.

IMHO the invasion of Iraq did not make the US or the world a safer place, on the contrary, it has raised tensions and made matters worse. Very especially for the Iraqi civilian victims and the US soldiers who are dying for no good cause.

[Revtim]

The claim that we are now safer here is one of those very politically useful ones that can never be disproven. No matter what happens, they can say it would have been worse if we hadn't invaded Iraq.

[amulimette]

You mean the social order which was destroyed by the invasion. How nice. Very nice indeed. At least 500,000 Iragis would probably think it nice.

That is, if they were alive today and hadn't been tortured, murdered and then buried en mass in shallow graves beneight hot desert sands by the Saddam Hussien social order that the colition Occupation with great sacrifice replaced.

[Avenger]

Originally posted by amulimette
Very nice indeed. At least 500,000 Iragis would probably think it nice.

That is, if they were alive today and hadn't been tortured, murdered and then buried en mass in shallow graves beneight hot desert sands by the Saddam Hussien social order that the colition Occupation with great sacrifice replaced.

Erm, I think that was the original point. It hasn't been replaced, not yet anyway.

[far_born]

Originally posted by adaher
[B]Well duh, it only makes sense that soldiers would be more likely to die if they are you know, fighting terrorists?Actually they are fighting a fair number of Iraqi insurgents who have taken on terrorist tactics due to losing a war that we umm happened to initiate. No Iraqi war, no Iraqi terrorists. If you follow my drift.

If your idea of fighting the war on terror is creating new terrorists just to fight them, I don't see any way you can win that war.

If you would like to assert that these terrorists attacks would have happened without the Iraq war, well I'd like to see your proof.
Evidence? There is none one way or the other. If you want to cite deaths, I've already pointed out the obvious: less Americans have died in 2002 and 2003 than in 2001. But you have no way to relate Iraq with the decrease in terror related deaths. The association would be purely speculation. I suppose I might as well credit that horseshoe I hung over my door.

OTOH, the deaths due to terrorist and guerilla tactics directly resulting from the war in Iraq are easily measurable.

[sailor]

Originally posted by amulimette
Very nice indeed. At least 500,000 Iragis would probably think it nice.

That is, if they were alive today and hadn't been tortured, murdered and then buried en mass in shallow graves beneight hot desert sands by the Saddam Hussien social order that the colition Occupation with great sacrifice replaced. And those thousands killed by the coalition and by the conditions the invasion created would definitely prefer the USA had stayed home. What's your point?

[adaher]

Well, the problem here is that you are making an analogy to a conventional war against a conventional enemy. All because the President and others have chosen to call this a "war" on terrorism does not mean it is a war in the conventional sense. So, it is unclear how effective it is to be fighting a conventional war against an unconventional enemy. I would argue that it is even less clear how effective it is to be fighting a conventional war against a nation that is only very tangentially connected to our unconventional enemy!

Let's set Iraq aside from the overall war on terror, since we will likely disagree on Iraq's role in that war.

You can't defeat terrorism without defeating the states that sponsor it. Terrorists are just like soldiers, they just don't wear a uniform. Just like soldiers, you can't just win a war by killing them, but by taking out the government that sent them to attack you. You have to take out their government, or at least make their government decide its better not to send soldiers or terrorists or what have you over to attack. If all you do is kill their soldiers, they'll just go get more. There are differences in tactics between a terrorist war and a conventional war, but on a grand strategic level there isn't that much seperating them.

Actually they are fighting a fair number of Iraqi insurgents who have taken on terrorist tactics due to losing a war that we umm happened to initiate. No Iraqi war, no Iraqi terrorists. If you follow my drift.


Supposedly Al Qaeda is fighting with them. If so, that's a good thing. We want them fighting us in conventional battles, not attacking our civilians. That was the whole point of invading Afghanistan was to fight them and destroy them. If they are obliging us in Iraq as well, that's a good thing.

The Iraqi insurgents who are not Al Qaeda are most likely Ba'athist diehards.

[Marley23]

A while back, I saw someone - on these boards, I think - suggest that if there IS an Al Qaeda presence in Iraq, it's probably not a huge one. Made sense to me: it's an easy spot for terrorists to slip into and cause problems, so they could be there, but they won't bet the farm on Iraq. There are too many other battlefields, including the US. There would be trouble in Iraq even if it was just Saddam loyalists, which the resistance is for the most part anyway, so Al Qaeda wouldn't need to get heavily involved if they're involved at all.

Given the way terrorism works - if you pull it off, it's kind of a low-risk, high-reward thing (such as a little money and training plus 19 deaths kills 3000 enemies) - I don't think the US can be made safer by 'distracting' terrorists in Iraq or elsewhere. Whatever is going on in Iraq, there's no way they're not planning attacks on the USA and elsewhere at the same time.

[far_born]

Originally posted by adaher
Supposedly Al Qaeda is fighting with them. If so, that's a good thing. We want them fighting us in conventional battles, not attacking our civilians. That was the whole point of invading Afghanistan was to fight them and destroy them. If they are obliging us in Iraq as well, that's a good thing.

The Iraqi insurgents who are not Al Qaeda are most likely Ba'athist diehards. I would think we wouldn't want Al Quaeda attacking us to begin with. Three soldiers died yesterday. If it was Al Quaeda attacking us then that's a good thing?

Now I don't claim to answers for terrorism, but I don't see how Iraq has helped matters at all.

Just because Al Quaeda might be involved, that doesn't mean they are expending their resources or risking their lives.

The only evidence of their involvement we have so far that I know of, are these tapes and training materials. This suggests to me that they are actually gaining new recruits or their training materials have simply been co-opted by the Iraqi resistance. Either way, it seems we actually have more terrorists to deal with now than before.

[Magiver]

Originally posted by minty green
Jesus Christ, John Lott really is a piece of work, isn't he? Aren't you guys the least bit ashamed that he's on your side? If you'll throw in Senator Clinton I'll think about it.

[adaher]

I would think we wouldn't want Al Quaeda attacking us to begin with. Three soldiers died yesterday. If it was Al Quaeda attacking us then that's a good thing?



Since Al Qaeda will attack us whether we want them to or not, isn't it better for them to take on those who can fight back?

[Marley23]

Planting a roadside bomb, even if it happens to be targeting soldiers, or driving a car bomb into a hotel or police station doesn't fit my definition of "taking on those who can fight back." Al Qaeda isn't going to take on the US Army. (Again, not saying that Al Qaeda is necessarily behind any particular attacks.) They can't do it, and that's not what terrorism is.

Anyway, if the Iraq war was helping us by distracting terrorists, then the next thing to do might be invade a whole bunch more countries in order to leave the terrorists a lot more tantalizing targets and distract them. But I don't think that makes any sense, and I don't think anyone would support that course of action (at least not for that reason). Soldiers are not the only targets in Iraq, and Iraq would not be the only target for Al Qaeda.

[sailor]

Originally posted by adaher
Since Al Qaeda will attack us whether we want them to or not, isn't it better for them to take on those who can fight back? I do not follow your reasoning which implies Al Qaeda is a constant quantity whih would use the same number of attacks no matter what. I find this affirmation ridiculous. I believe Al Qaeda has been strengthened by the invasion of Iraq. I do not believe the number of dead (Americans and Iraqis) would have happened in America had the USA not invaded Iraq. Not to mention that, as the daily news reports, it seems the USA is under direct threat anyway and flights are being cancelled and/or delayed. The USA lives under more fear of terrorism in 2004 than it did in 2002. I would say the events of 2003 have made matters worse, not better.

[Marley23]

Just wanted to add that, unfortunately, I firmly agree that there is not a fixed number of terrorists out there. Events like this war create more of them in the future and maybe the immediate present.

[far_born]

Originally posted by adaher
Since Al Qaeda will attack us whether we want them to or not, isn't it better for them to take on those who can fight back? You're presupposing an either/or choice by Al Quaeda, this thread is all about demonstrating that Al Quaeda has to make that choice. So please do.

[Jojo]

The war in Iraq was never meant to make things safer in the short term.

Of course America invading a middle eastern country would inflame passions. No doubt about that, it was always going to happen.

The judgement is that the removal of Saddam (and therefore the removal of the sanctions) would deflate passions in the long term. When OBL made his fatwa against the US he cited three things:

- that America is hurting muslims by supporting Israel against the Palestinians
- that America is hurting muslims by imposing sanctions on Iraq
- that America is defiling muslims by stationing troops in the Holy Land

In answer to this fatwa America has:

- published it's "road map" to help solve the Palestine issue
- got rid of Saddam (and therefore the sanctions)
- removed it's troops from the Holy Land


Therefore every one of al Qaida's demands has been addressed (to some extent). Those demands that haven't been fully addressed are open to negotiation - everything is open to negotiation.

Al Qaida are not reasonable people. They live in a dream world where all non-muslims are "the enemy" and must be subjugated. Sam Stone talked about the "root cause" of terrorism. He posited that once democracy is installed in these countries the people will be happier and will no longer feel the need to hate the west.

I think that once democracy is installed in these countries, the people WILL indeed be happier but they will still hate the west. This is because the "root cause" isn't their political system but their religious system which appears to teach that:

1. Islam is the only true religion and all other religions are false

This isn't unique to Islam. All religions teach that they are the only correct one and that all others are false. The problem lies in the fact that:

2. Islam believes that all non-muslims should be accorded inferior status and should be subjugated

Witness dhimmi status, jezyah etc. Copts in Egypt have to jump through incredible hoops to get permission to build a new church including getting permission from the President of Egypt himself. This is despite the fact that there is a sizeable christian population in Egypt (10%).

In Saudi, the homeland, no christian churches at all are allowed.

Even the fact that Islam believes that all other people are inferior wouldn't be a problem if it weren't for the fact that:

3. Islam's dictats permeate all levels of society

Islam has rules for how you should run your government, what laws you should have, what you should think, what morals you should have. It controls the macro and the micro.

The more fervent followers also follow it's dress codes - believers should all dress like Mohammed (wearing a simple garb of two pieces of linen) and should all look like Mohammed (by wearing a beard but no moustache).

Criticism of Mohammed and Islam is not allowed in most muslim countries. And yet, if you are a christian or a hindu for example, then criticism of Mohammed is inherent in what you believe since obviously you think he was mistaken.

Marley said that "al Qaida is not going to fight the US army". I disagree, I think they will. Because they live in a dream world. You are making a mistake because you are thinking logically, you are thinking:

"They would have to be mad to face up against the US army when they could be plotting attacks elsewhere"

You are thinking logically and not thinking islamically. Islamic thinking is somewhat different. In the Islamic mind you are striking a blow against the infidel enemy and guaranteeing yourself a place in paradise - even if all you do is kill one American soldier with an otherwise pointless suicide bombing.

Islam is a fairly fatalistic religion - insh'allah (God Willing) is a popular refrain. They think everything is pre-determined by God. They think that there will one day be a big war in which lots of muslims will die and Islam will shrink and be confined to Mecca where it started. Then Jesus will return and the "mahdi" will come and Jesus will go to Mecca and pray behind the mahdi as a sign that Islam was right and then everyone will convert.

So Bin Laden and his followers don't actually expect to win this war. All they want to do is fight the infidel in the cause of Islam and if any of them are lucky enough to get killed in the process then that's OK because they will go to paradise.

Islam as an ideology is insane - if you find yourself living on a world with several different religions then it's unwise for one of those religions to have "subjugating all the others" as an article of faith. Makes war and unease inevitable.

Since God knows everything then one would have thought that God might have thought all this through a bit more carefully before He created His one true religion, Islam.

So the root cause is Islam but it's just far too big an issue for most people to think about. Makes people uncomfortable to think that they share a planet with 1 billion borg.

[far_born]

Jojo,
You're not really addressing the subject of the thread here. As for the rest of your post... "1 billion borg"? How many people do you talk to that practice Islam?

[Jojo]

ok the borg remark was over the top. But I did address the thread subject - has the Iraq war made the US safer? Short term no, long term yes. Once the US has pulled out and Iraq has it's own government and a few years have passed then muslims will start to realise that al Q have no real concrete gripes anymore.

There will still be terrorists though because a religion of 1 billion is bound to have a few extremists especially when that religion's holy book exhorts it's followers to "kill the infidel" and to "not take unbelievers as friends" and to accord dhimmi status to the unbelievers etc etc.

Osama has never met me and yet he hates me simply because I don't agree with his conception of God. The reason he thinks like this is because he thinks the quran tells him to. It's possible the quran doesn't say this but, having read it, I can understand how he made the mistake.

I, on the other hand, don't hate Osama. I feel sorry for him. He's trapped by a dud ideology inside a mental prison of his own making (like all muslims). My pity can only go so far though - the prison IS of his own making after all, he can leave any time he wants.

Have you ever tried to ask yourself the question "What do al Qaida actually want?" It's a very simple question. It works with most terrorist groups - FARC, ETA, IRA. You can define what it is they actually want. Try it with al Qaida, I've come up blank. And yet this would appear to be the most important question of all.

[Aldebaran]

JoJo, your rant on Islam is of a kind that would ask a new topic to go into it if I felt any wish to do so. Which I do not, until you open one and come up with a more reasonable defense of your arguments.

So until then - and acting in line with Islamic teachings - I wish you

Salaam (= peace). A

[far_born]

Originally posted by Jojo
ok the borg remark was over the top. But I did address the thread subject - has the Iraq war made the US safer? Short term no, long term yes. This thread is considerably more specific than that I would say. Although since you feel that in the short term ( or at the present moment) we aren't safer then you wouldn't really be making the argument that is in the title of this thread.

[Jojo]

far_born said:

This thread is considerably more specific than that I would say. Although since you feel that in the short term ( or at the present moment) we aren't safer then you wouldn't really be making the argument that is in the title of this thread.

I reproduce the OP of this thread in full:

This isn't an idea I'd defend, rather one I'd like to debate. I've seen it proposed that by bringing the fight to Iraq the terrorists are now fighting an armed force instead of the US civilian population, hence we are safer now.

I'd like to see some evidence to support this idea.

Certainly, there seems to be a significant and not unexpected presence of Al Quaeda in Iraq. The breakdown in police supervision, economic upheaval and disarray has created an ideal breeding ground for terrorism. So I'm not surprised they are there. Why wouldn't they be?

But I fail to see any evidence that we are safer because of the opening up of a new recruiting ground and raison d'etre for Al Quaeda.

I understand there may be some slight variations on this theory, so the adherents are welcome to clarify if they want to restate.

I agree with you that the west (and the US) is no safer now since the opening of a new battlefield in Iraq. But I think that the opening of a new battlefield will draw al Qaida recruits to it. Radical muslims will not be able to resist the opportunity to fight America directly, believe me. So they will come to Iraq in the same way they came to Afghanistan to fight Russia.

There is a slight difference though. Russia was shit, America is a meat grinder. All radical muslims that throw themselves at the US army in Iraq will die. Afghanistan is a difficult country to defend, so mountainous. The Russians had problems with people popping up from behind a rock and firing a rocket launcher at a helicopter.

America doesn't have this problem because America is supporting a regime that is in opposition to the Taliban. Most Afghans didn't like the Taliban (especially the Kabul Afghans) so most Afghans support a change of government. They may not like the Americans but they don't want the Taliban back.

In muslim circles they see the fight against America in Iraq as similar to the fight against the Russians in Afghanistan. Resistance to the infidel in muslim lands.

However, people who see it this way are mistaken in a couple of ways:

1: The only reason the mujahadeen were successful against Russia was because they had American backing. Without American backing they are fucked.

2: The current US army is the largest and most powerful military force ever to grace the planet. They are a whole different ball game to the Russians (who were technologically poor, innefficient and corrupt). The US army is like a meat grinder, it kills whatever it comes near. It absorbs whatever it meets. The more suicide bombers that throw themselves at the US forces in Iraq the better. The less there will then be to throw themselves at us civilians.

That's one of the things about suicide bombers - each one that blows himself up is one less for us to worry about!

Suicide bombing is, in fact, a shit tactic of war.

So my argument is that, in the short term, Iraq will draw radical muslims to it like moths to a flame (but unfortunately they will all die) and then in the long term, moderate muslims will realise that Iraq is probably better off without Saddam Hussein and his mad sons.

So the whole thing will calm down.

We will however have a rough ride in the intervening years. But then there was no choice, Saddam had to go because of the following logic:

1. The sanctions against Iraq were pissing off the world's muslims big time so the sanctions had to go.

2. The sanctions could not go while Saddam Hussein was in power for 3 reasons

(i) If the sanctions went then Saddam would try to build nuclear weapons - remember that he tried to build them in the mid-80s. We only found out about this because one of his ministers defected. Turned out he had a huge nuclear weapons program.

(ii) When Saddam dies, his sons would have taken over and they are even madder than he is.


(ii) America would lose face. The US fought a war against this guy not long ago. They couldn't then say "All is forgiven". They would lose face. So in order to remove the sanctions, America had to get rid of the guy who triggered them. And his sons.

Aldebaran said:

So until then - and acting in line with Islamic teachings - I wish you

Salaam (= peace). A

Peace?

You are wishing me peace?

I know all about the muslim vision of peace.

I think that your definition of peace is different to my definition of peace.

The Islamic version of peace is otherwise known as surrender or submission. The only "peace" that Islam recognises is the kind of peace whereby one comes to terms with living under the Islamic regime.

This site is called dhimmitude.org (http://www.dhimmitude.org/), it points out the rights of non-muslims living in a muslim state (http://www.answering-islam.org/NonMuslims/rights.htm):

[quote]1)
Zimmis (those in custody) are non-Muslim subjects who live in Muslim countries and agree to pay the Jizya (tribute) in exchange for protection and safety, and to be subject to Islamic law. These enjoy a permanent covenant.

2)
People of the Hudna (truce) are those who sign a peace treaty with Muslims after being defeated in war. They agree to reside in their own land, yet to be subject to the legal jurisprudence of Islam like Zimmis, provided they do not wage war against Muslims.

3)
Musta'min (protected one) are persons who come to an Islamic country as messengers, merchants, visitors, or student wanting to learn about Islam. A Musta'min should not wage war against Muslims and he is not obliged to pay Jizya, but he would be urged to embrace Islam. If a Musta'min does not accept Islam, he is allowed to return safely to his own country. Muslims are forbidden to hurt him in any way. When he is back in his own homeland, he is treated as one who belongs to the Household of War.
This study will focus on the laws pertaining to Zimmis.

Islamic Law and Zimmis
Muslim Muftis (legal authorities) agree that the contract of the Zimmis should be offered primarily to the People of the Book, that is, Christians and Jews, then to the Magis or Zoroastrians. However, they disagree on whether any contract should be signed with other groups such as communists or atheists. The Hanbalites and the Shafi`ites believe that no contract should be made with the ungodly or those who do not believe in the supreme God. Hanifites and Malikites affirm that the Jizya may be accepted from all infidels regardless of their beliefs and faith in God. Abu Hanifa, however, did not want pagan Arabs to have this option because they are the people of the Prophet. They. must be given only two options: accept Islam or be killed. [...]

[material removed due to copyright concerns --Gaudere]

[quote]

To be continued...

[Jojo]

continued...

According to Muslim jurists, the following legal ordinances must be enforced on Zimmis (Christians and Jews alike) who reside among Muslims:

1)
Zimmis are not allowed to build new churches, temples, or synagogues. They are allowed to renovate old churches or houses of worship provided they do not allow to add any new construction. "Old churches" are those which existed prior to Islamic conquests and are included in a peace accord by Muslims. Construction of any church, temple, or synagogue in the Arab Peninsula (Saudi Arabia) is prohibited. It is the land of the Prophet and only Islam should prevail there. Yet, Muslims, if they wish, are permitted to demolish all non-Muslim houses of worship in any land they conquer.

2)
Zimmis are not allowed to pray or read their sacred books out loud at home or in churches, lest Muslims hear their prayers.

3)
Zimmis are not allowed to print their religious books or sell them in public places and markets. They are allowed to publish and sell them among their own people, in their churches and temples.

4)
Zimmis are not allowed to install the cross on their houses or churches since it is a symbol of infidelity.

5)
Zimmis are not permitted to broadcast or display their ceremonial religious rituals on radio or television or to use the media or to publish any picture of their religious ceremonies in newspaper and magazines. [...]

[material removed due to copyright concerns --Gaudere]

[Jojo]

Anyway, I've probably quoted too much, you can read the rest yourself.

Now, I'm not saying that all of the above is agreed upon by all muslims but it is the general gist.

You know what, Aldebaran, I've got a proposition for you.

How about you stick your dhimmi status, your jezyah humiliation tax and your "peace on our terms" up your fat muzlim A-hole?




(Apologies to any moderaters reading this but I am not attacking the poster personally, I am attacking his ideology and my quote was long but I wanted people to get an idea of the kind of stuff islam teaches).

[jayjay]

*countdown begins....10....9....8...*

[Stoneburg]

I think JoJo is a great example of the sort of multicultural understanding and tolerance, together with diplomatic understanding, that will make it possible for us to see peace in our time and an end to this conflict. I wish everyone was so understanding, open-minded and non-confrontational.

Now that we have bridged this issue, maybe we could get down to the really constructive part and start calling eachother names and insult eachothers mothers.

Salaam.

[Mehitabel]

<Whoa. I have no love for Alde, but still, whoa.>

Anyway, FWIW, we're no longer on Orange Alert-- we went back to Yellow Alert this morning, by executive order. Whew. I don't care if you think that it was all silly hyperbole or that our brave DHS thwarted the ruthless bastards, I think we're all glad the holidays passed without incident.

[far_born]

Jojo,

Attacking his idealogy? Give me a break.

Start your own thread for these issues, apparently you may need to go to the Pit to do so.

Furthermore you didn't even relate your beefs with Islam to the thread.

That's really all I have to say to you.

[Gaudere]

Jojo:
How about you stick your dhimmi status, your jezyah humiliation tax and your "peace on our terms" up your fat muzlim A-hole?

[Moderator Hat ON]

Jojo, you are CLEARLY attacking the poster personally here, and you will refrain from such insults in this forum if you wish to keep your posting privileges. Also, do not quote large chunks of copyrighted materials; use short excerpts or a link ONLY.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Aldebaran]

In my opinion this member would be better off if he would start reading some books about Islam, and its history, instead of posting a demonstration of The Great Wisdom of Those Who Know Nothing.

Why does this "nothing" suddenly makes a link in my mind with "Fawlty Towers/Manuel"....I don't know. Honestly

Salaam. A

[Mtgman]

Well heck, if all it takes to lower the threat of international terrorism is an executive order then GW better get signing! By signing executive orders he somehow mystically connects with the terrorists planning activity and convinces them to hold off. Now the actual threat has been reduced and the alert level can be lowered.

Or maybe the actual threat hasn't changed one bit now that the signature is on paper and it has done nothing more than further discredit an already dubious alert system.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Jojo]

oh ok, I thought it was funny. Nevermind.

As regards tolerance, well, we have to live with these religions but I don't have to like it.

I don't really understand how I was attacking Aldebaran personally though. I have nothing against him, I was attacking an ideological system that holds a large part of world in bondage.

By pointing out the deficiencies in that ideological system I hope that I can encourage some of them to rethink their positions. A futile hope, I know, but it gives me something to do.

The problem with tolerance and respect is that everybody is so damn tolerant and respectful and so afraid of upsetting anybody that nobody ever says anything.

Islam is directly related to this thread because it's the driving force of al Qaida who are the terrorists in question. Baader Meinhof were marxist so marxism is relevant when talking about them, al Q are islamic so islam is relevant.

I think that an ideology that can sentence a 16 year old girl to 100 lashes because she's pregnant (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15053) could learn a thing or two about tolerance and respect itself.

But hey, maybe islam is great and it's me that's weird.

[elucidator]

There is no such animal as "Islam". There is no such entity, it covers ground all the way from the madly puritanical Wahabbist sects to the odd, zen-like mysticism of the Sufi. The alleged identity "Christianity" includes Dorothy Day, Pat Buchanan, and Mother Theresa. Would you place responsibility for the Inquisition burnings at the feet of the Berrigan brothers?

Forget the concept "Islam". No such thing.

[rjung]

Originally posted by Jojo
oh ok, I thought it was funny.
I'll just bet you did.

As regards tolerance, well, we have to live with these religions but I don't have to like it.
I feel the same way about every religion on Earth.

Say... what's your faith?

By pointing out the deficiencies in that ideological system I hope that I can encourage some of them to rethink their positions. A futile hope, I know, but it gives me something to do.
The problem is that "Islam" is not a single monolithic religion, just as Judiasm and Christianity and Shinto and Buddhism aren't all one-faith tricks. Saying "Islam is about X" omits the fact that some branches of Islam support that, and some don't.

Your argument is as flimsy as saying, "all Christians do whatever the Pope tells them to," which would be a surprise to all the Baptists and Methodists and Latter-Day Saints out there, for instance.

I think that an ideology that can sentence a 16 year old girl to 100 lashes because she's pregnant (http://www.amnesty.org.uk/deliver/document/15053) could learn a thing or two about tolerance and respect itself.
How about a religion that says it's okay to kill doctors just because they were performing legal abortions?

[Stoneburg]

Originally posted by Jojo
oh ok, I thought it was funny. Nevermind.

Well it wasn't, and I doubt even you thought so.

As regards tolerance, well, we have to live with these religions but I don't have to like it.
Consider me, who has to live with both this religion and yours, and like neither.

I don't really understand how I was attacking Aldebaran personally though.
You "don't understand" how "You know what, Aldebaran, I've got a proposition for you. How about you stick your dhimmi status, your jezyah humiliation tax and your "peace on our terms" up your fat muzlim A-hole?
can be considered a personal attack?

The problem with tolerance and respect is that everybody is so damn tolerant and respectful and so afraid of upsetting anybody that nobody ever says anything.
Yes! That is the big problem! The problem is that everyone is just too tolerant and respectful! If you're tolerant and respectful, the terrorists have already won!

Islam is directly related to this thread because it's the driving force of al Qaida who are the terrorists in question. Baader Meinhof were marxist so marxism is relevant when talking about them, al Q are islamic so islam is relevant.
The KKK is Christian. Nuff said.

I think that an ideology that can sentence a 16 year old girl to 100 lashes because she's pregnant could learn a thing or two about tolerance and respect itself.
Yes... because judaism and christianity is extremely tolerant. The bible advocating harsh penalties on severe offenses such as planting crops the wrong way or touching dead pigs. Get a grip. Christians have killed adulterers as well as old ladies under the cover of christianity. Islam is no worse then either of them.

But hey, maybe islam is great and it's me that's weird.
Maybe Islam is pretty simmilar to the religions it is based on and you're not weird at all, only ignorant and intolerant. I wish that would be considered weird, but I'm afraid you're in the majority.

[Jojo]

Consider me, who has to live with both this religion and yours, and like neither.

I don't have a religion. I think it's unwise to hitch your wagon to any one belief system. It's best to make things up as we go along - doing whatever seems best. Following the natural evolution of ideas, that's how democracy evolved.

You "don't understand" how "You know what, Aldebaran, I've got a proposition for you. How about you stick your dhimmi status, your jezyah humiliation tax and your "peace on our terms" up your fat muzlim A-hole?
can be considered a personal attack?

No. Actually, as sentences go I thought it scanned quite well. I was quite pleased with it. Obviously the "fat" bit was gratuitous.

Since I have never seen Aldebaran's A-hole I have no idea as to it's dimensions but just saying "up your muzlim A-hole" didn't seem to scan as well so I had to add something. Perhaps Aldebaran could photocopy a picture of his a-hole and fax it to us all so that we all know what we are talking about?

Aldebaran?

[jayjay]

*digdigdigdigdigdigdigdigdig*

Keep on digging, Jojo. Maybe as a reward someone will show you the fearsome egress...

[Jojo]

okay, okay. Forget I mentioned anyone's damn a-hole.

Thread locked.