Lieberman-Kyl amendment

[guartz]

oh yea sephir?

You familiar with the IRA and that conflict?

[Egon]

Let me say one last thing and i'll leave this be.

I want our great country to be safe from terrorism. In order to do this, we have to kill terrorists. I think that everyone here loves our great USA, and I think everyone here also wants it to be safe.

If we leave Iraq now, and never give Iran a bit of attention, then Iran will move in, conquer Iraq, which will put the Iranian Government in a really good spot for power.

So, let's ask the question, Why do we care if Iran has some power and some good oil money? The reason why we should care is because Iran funds alot of really shitty people, as i have stated before, and posted a link for. The last thing we should all want is for Osoma to get even more funding. Iran makes this possible.

These are all my beliefs, and if you don't agree with them, that's ok. If anyone here can give a better idea to fight terrorism, please by all means, let your voice be heard. But until we get a better idea, we have to stick with what works. We have not been attacked again. And that's because we took the fight to their shores. You can not deny that.

Democrats are missing the JFK's of the party, as are Republicans missing the Regan's. I want all of us to work together and fight terrorism together. We are not getting anything done fighting back and forth with each other. We should be fighting our common enemy. That enemy is the people who want to kill Americans just because we don't believe the way they believe.

If you haven't yet, i recommend reading the transcript of the last Osoma tape. It really puts into context how crazy they are. And it also shows that they do convert by the sword. It doesn't matter who is in office, and it doesn't matter what party you belong to. We are all Americans, and they want us all dead (or convert to Islam).


PS- I didn't mean to come off as a troll. I visit these forums alot, just never say much. But seeking a pt on thf can really get boring. Good Night!

[sephir]

My Uncle was a police officer in Ireland during the 1980's so yeah I know all about it.

Edit(again) Terrorismn has been goingo n for thousands of years as has the war between christianity and islam. Just because a country like Iraq or Iran is invaded doesn't mean you are going to win.

[guartz]

There is so little information regarding it. Sorry for the derail btw.

I've heard two sides so far. Fuck you brits get out, and IRA are buncha murdering thugs.

Your uncle being a cop, you probably gonna say the latter, right?

[Kuya]

Holy shit you were serious!?!

I want our great country to be safe from terrorism. In order to do this, we have to kill terrorists. I think that everyone here loves our great USA, and I think everyone here also wants it to be safe.

I'm not American, so, ugh... yea.

If we leave Iraq now, and never give Iran a bit of attention, then Iran will move in, conquer Iraq, which will put the Iranian Government in a really good spot for power.

Maybe, maybe not. No factual evidence to back that up until they actually do it. And you certainly can't invade countries on hunches. Errr, i mean, you're not susposed to.

So, let's ask the question, Why do we care if Iran has some power and some good oil money? The reason why we should care is because Iran funds alot of really shitty people, as i have stated before, and posted a link for. The last thing we should all want is for Osoma to get even more funding. Iran makes this possible.

In the link you posted it also sead Hezbollah, allegedly, does not have any links to Al Quaida(sp?), and that Osama's network considers Hezbollah, apostates.

It's your opinion and all that jazz, but if you're going to state your opinion, especially an uneducated one, expect some flames. You come here with very shallow knowledge of the matter, you presume the terrorist only attack because they don't think the way you do, when that is only the tip of the iceberg. Exactly how do you fight terrorism? How do you kill an idea? You can't. I find it terribly annoying that the administration has coined this phrase, because it clearly denotes more classic attempts by a goverment to make sensationalist ideas in order to rally its populus for whatever cause it deems worthy. Terrorism is such an abstract word, that placing any value on it is a lost cause.

Fighting for a just cause, if the word just is even applicable anymore, is nice and everything. But you certainly shouldn't follow along blindly. And as for those Osama tapes, honestly who the fuck cares about those things? If i were more like quartz, i'd probably say those are made up bullshit by the goverment to spam every few months to spook the stupid into thinking some nasty shit is going to go down. Also you seem to make the mistake that his has anything to do with party lines, when it has more to do with you, clearly being a victim of propaganda.

[guartz]

Osama? Al-queda? those are made up bullshit by the goverment to spam every few months to spook the stupid into thinking some nasty shit is going to go down.

[sephir]

Not really, I think what the IRA did was terrible but I know that they believed they were fighting for their freedom. Although I strongly disagree with the manner in which they went about trying to regain their freedom I can at some level emphathize with them. The brits, also got pretty reckless in their actions against the Irish and really let the whole thing boil down to "an eye for an eye".

Most wars are wars of religion and in my point of view, pointless. You can't dwell on the past and believe that the Christian Muslim conflict is still in the year of the crusades.

[Kuya]

I keep forgetting your name starts with a g.

[Charla]

First, what I meant was that A-man used the visit as propaganda for his own country. He was trying to make himself look good for them, not for us. Or more specifically for the clerics who actually run the place.

@Egon: Hezbollah may or may not be funded by the Iranian government, but it isn't Hezbollah that's interested in us at this point. The groups that are interested in us are probably not funded by Iran. Furthermore, those groups probably aren't "funded" by anything other than their own efforts. Blackmail, kidnapping, drug running, extortion, etc. They don't need a government behind them.

Now for the real issue: If "killing terrorists" were enough to end Islamist terrorism, it would be much simpler. However, because Islamist organizations are constantly replenished by the extremely angry fundamentalist populations of numerous countries, simply killing people is never going to end terrorism. Bringing up Osama's speeches is helpful here, because it points out that even a crazy person can't start an army unless he has a way to rally large numbers of people. The fact that he can point out America's "immorality" and "imperialism" (or whatever he feels like calling it) and be taken seriously is more important than the mere fact of his own craziness. Islamist terrorism exists because of the miserable state of numerous Islamic countries. If Saudi Arabia's people had been living as well as, say, Spain's for the last 50 years or so, they wouldn't join up with the terrorists. They don't just hate us because we don't believe the way they believe. They hate us for believing something different because we have it better than they do. On top of that, you could make the argument that the reason they have it so bad is because we're holding them down (mostly by pumping money into their corrupt and oppressive governments).

edit:

Osama? Al-queda? those are made up bullshit by the goverment to spam every few months to spook the stupid into thinking some nasty shit is going to go down.

I see what you did thar.

[Tyr]

I had a quick question for anyone in this post to answer. There was a claim made earlier, I think, that the Iranian government is racist towards Jews. Firstly, is there any evidence to support this claim? Also:

1) Can anyone find the exact quote from Ahmadinejad saying something to the effect that "the holocaust DID NOT occur?" I personally have not found it, and I have been listening in the actual Farsi. While this is the case, I don't put myself past the fact that I have missed a part of his speech, or one of his speeches where he may have said it. So, to reiterate, can anyone provide me with that quote?

2) Can anyone provide the exact quote of Ahmadinejad saying Israel should be eradicated/vanquished? This might be much easier to find than the former, but I don't think that this would fuel a claim that the Iranian regime is racist towards Jews, rather has hatred for Israel. Jewish =/= Israel.

Thanks to anyone who can provide me with these two.

[Exoduso]

Jewish =/= Israel.

Except, you know, it is.

[Charla]

In December 2005 Ahmadinejad made several controversial statements about the Holocaust, calling it "a myth", and criticizing European laws against Holocaust denial.[127] In a May 30, 2006 interview with Der Spiegel Ahmadinejad again questioned the Holocaust several times, insisting there were "two opinions" on it. When asked if the Holocaust was a myth, he responded "I will only accept something as truth if I am actually convinced of it".[128] In an appearance at Columbia University September 25, 2007, he stated that the Holocaust should be left open to debate and research like any other historical event. [129]

In response to these statements and actions, a variety of sources, including the U.S. Senate,[130] have accused Ahmadinejad of antisemitism. On December 11, 2006 the "International Conference to Review the Global Vision of the Holocaust" opened, with widespread world condemnation of this conference.[131] The conference, called for by and held at the behest of Ahmadinejad,[132] was widely described as a "Holocaust denial conference" or a "meeting of Holocaust deniers",[133] though Iran maintained that it was not a Holocaust denial conference.[134]

Elucidating some of the above quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... _Holocaust

And pretty much this whole article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... and_Israel
edit: fun fact time! Apparently that "wiped off the map" quote is more accurately translated as "[T]his regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."

In case Wikipedia isn't accurate enough, just try any of the several hundred sources it cites. Also a useful technique for finding reference material for papers.

[guartz]

Here this might help

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7rH4egQBU

[Tyr]

Now for the real issue: If "killing terrorists" were enough to end Islamist terrorism, it would be much simpler. However, because Islamist organizations are constantly replenished by the extremely angry fundamentalist populations of numerous countries, simply killing people is never going to end terrorism. Bringing up Osama's speeches is helpful here, because it points out that even a crazy person can't start an army unless he has a way to rally large numbers of people. The fact that he can point out America's "immorality" and "imperialism" (or whatever he feels like calling it) and be taken seriously is more important than the mere fact of his own craziness. Islamist terrorism exists because of the miserable state of numerous Islamic countries. If Saudi Arabia's people had been living as well as, say, Spain's for the last 50 years or so, they wouldn't join up with the terrorists. They don't just hate us because we don't believe the way they believe. They hate us for believing something different because we have it better than they do. On top of that, you could make the argument that the reason they have it so bad is because we're holding them down (mostly by pumping money into their corrupt and oppressive governments).

If it's fair to term all of these terrorist activities as "Islamic terrorist organizations," then we should label most global acts of terrorism with a similar religious term. I don't see why American support of Israel or War with Iraq can't be termed as "Christian terrorism." While it is the fact that sadly, most terrorist organizations within the Middle East insist on saying that they are doing it "in the name of Islam," and that in the Western tradition, it is widely the case that church & state are to be seen as contrasts to one another, I don't think that because the current administration is not bolstering the claim that they are doing it "in the name of Christianity," you can completely rule out the scenario. If it is fair to say term terrorist organizations as "Islamic" or abiding by "Islam," then there is a same amount, if not greater support to say the same of various forms of Western involvement and its relationship with Christianity--not just within the past decade, but in nearly the entirety of its history. If you were to say "Muslim terrorist," I wouldn't be as adversed because it is a sad, but true fact. But to term the religion, which is in no way based on "terrorism" and incorporate it into contexts which fuel such a claim is extremely crass and ignorant. If, the case is that you believe Islam to be a terrorist religion, then one of two things is possible: I would either discuss this with you and try to show you that this is not the case, rather the complete opposite, or, if you are persistent in your hidebound view, you can disregard the entirety of this post.

I may have not clarified why I would not be adversed to using "Muslim terrorist" versus "Islamic terrorist," so allow me to do so. The difference between Islamic or Islamist and Muslim is in the fact that the latter is widely known to refer to a person. Furthermore, at least within the context of Islam, a Muslim might be directly related to Islam in that they are a (supposed) follower of the religion, but there is no direct link between Islamic doctrine and a Muslim. When "Islam" is used whether as a prefix or the term itself, there is a direct implication made about the religion itself. Saying "Islamic terrorist" implies that Islam bolsters terrorism (again, which it does not-refer above), and is equivalent in ways to saying a religion such as Judaism or Christianity is inherently terrorist.

[Charla]

The word I actually used was Islamist.

I used the word Islamic once in that block you quoted, when describing the countries from which terrorist groups draw their members. Islamist would be a more or less accurate adjective for organizations such as Al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Taliban, Hizballah, and Hamas, all of which are listed in that wikipedia article under "Islamist movements". The reason nobody ever uses the term Islamist is because many people would think they were reading or hearing the word Islamic (as you've just demonstrated), and that would be inaccurate (as you've just informed us).

[guartz]

I feel like I need to mention that Muslim Brotherhood started by Kotb Sayd in 50s was a peaceful movement to end corruption of Islam in egypt. It didn't turn violent until it's memebers were arrested, tortured and executed by the CIA and complacent egyptian government agents. Muslim Brotherhood spawned most of the "terrorist organizations" in the middle east today.

Likewise, Leo Strauss started the neo-conservative movement (much for the same reasons Kotb Sayd started his) that dominates politics today, who lead the war in Iraq.

There is a striking resemblance between what Sayd said and what Strauss said. American liberalism is corrupt.
The only difference is the between those two is their proposed solution. One suggested to combat spreading western liberalism with Islam, the other suggested to keep America in a perpetual fight against evil.

[Tyr]

I don't mean to double post, but this is in reply to Guartz and Charla's most recent posts.


"Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement."

Wipe Zionist Regime =/= Wipe Israel off the map.

I'm still unconvinced that disbelief in the Holocaust is inherently anti-Semitic. It is questioning of a historical event. Whether or not this is a legitimate stance is another question, but to deny that is not anti-semitic in nature, I don't think. Also, I still have yet to year Ahmadinejad say "we will whipe Israel off the earth," or something to that effect, rather that they will "wipe off" the "occupying regime." Isn't that the stance taken by America in attacking Iraq, that was defended in this post (I believe by Egon?). Otherwise, America's stance of "eradicating the regime of Saddam" was actually the same as "eradicating Iraq," if we were to apply the same conditions we are to Ahmadinejad to the current administration. I'm not arguing whether or not it is right to make any such claim (to wipe out the Zionist regime or anything), I'm just saying given this line from the Wikipedia page on Ahmadinejad-and-Israel and the Youtube link, there is a distortion of what was actually said.

Now, back to the issue of denying the Holocaust. Let me clarify that I did not say there's no way that denying the Holocaust can be anti-Semitic, rather, that it is not so by virtue of his inherent doubting or questioning.

Here's something that intrigues me. I myself am Iranian, and for me, a lot of what I've been fed from the media shows me that Ahmadinejad is the Middle East's version of George Bush. Now, while my current belief is otherwise (let me clarify: I do not necessarily support the Iranian government or Ahmadinejad's claims), in that Ahmadinejad is a slight upgrade, I think there is a double-standard afoot. A further interesting analogy for me is Ahmadinejad : Palestine :: Bush : Israel. I do not mean for the discussion to lead to Palestine-Israel debate, or to say that this analogy is strictly clear, rather to point something intriguing out. However, here is where the double-standard arises. Ahmadinejad vehemently supports Palestine and vehemently calls for the eradication of a zionist regime in Israel. Is Bush not doing the same, so long as we reverse the names Israel and Palestine? Bush openly and fervently supports Israel, as has the American government for quite some time, and despite any claims that this is not the case, has really no concern for the development of Palestine. In effect, while Bush does not go so far as to say "Palestine should be eradicated" or that "A Palestinian government should be eradicated," by virtue of his actions this seems to be the case. Why then, are we not holding Bush to the same claims of racism and anti-Semitism that we are towards Ahmadinejad?


Note: I did not see the entirety of the YouTube video before writing what I have above. This post then is somewhat in line with the Youtube post, and that Ahmadinejad never stated that "Israel should be wiped off the face of the map."

Getting somewhat back on topic. Given that the current administration used the argument of "WMDs" to fuel support for invading Iraq, and given the obvious distortion of Ahmadinejad's words, at LEAST in the context of "wiping Israel off the map," is it too far fetched to assume that they will simply repeat the same tactic, and provide a plethora of distorted facts to use as support for an invasion? I personally can't put it behind this administration, or the American government. The question for me is, would there be enough support to bring back a draft?


Back to the Holocaust issue again:

"Some European countries insist on saying that during World War II, Hitler burned millions of Jews and put them in concentration camps... Any historian, commentator or scientist who doubts that is taken to prison or gets condemned. Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is true, if the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe—like in Germany, Austria or other countries—to the Zionists and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe and we will support it."

A quote taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ah ... and_Israel (thank you Charla for the links)

Let's talk strict politics. Ahmadinejad's statement is obvious. I think it is safe to say with this quote that he denies the Holocaust, however, his point is that Germany's crimes against the Jewish population (for him, this is under the provision that these events did occur) means that Germany should provide the Jewish population with land. Why is it that land from the Middle East must be given to the displaced Jewish population over a crime committed by Germany in Europe? "You offer part of Europe and we will support it." Strictly speaking politics, there is no validity in giving Middle Eastern land for a crime committed by Europe. This is also one reason why I'm sure Ahmadinejad would cite ulterior motives afoot.

Now, if we look at the strict text of the quote, and the speech itself, the tone of Ahmadinejad, while not completely apologetic, does not stress that he does not believe the Holocaust did not occur. Let me clarify. I doubt Ahmadinejad believes the Holocaust occurred as a historical event. Him mentioning this in his speech was an imposition of his opinion, namely that "we don't accept this hisorical event, but let's suppose we do: why were the Jewish people given Palestinian land?" While I completely disagree with his opinion of denying the occurrence of the Holocaust, I certainly see the validity in his point. Thank you Charla for the links, but my aforementioned point still stands. Denying the legitimacy of the historical accuracy of the Holocaust, while stupid, crass, and completely wrong in my opinion, does not inherently make you anti-Semitic.

[Tyr]

The word I actually used was Islamist.

I used the word Islamic once in that block you quoted, when describing the countries from which terrorist groups draw their members. Islamist would be a more or less accurate adjective for organizations such as Al-Qaida, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hizb ut-Tahrir, the Taliban, Hizballah, and Hamas, all of which are listed in that wikipedia article under "Islamist movements". The reason nobody ever uses the term Islamist is because many people would think they were reading or hearing the word Islamic (as you've just demonstrated), and that would be inaccurate (as you've just informed us).

I cringe and/or sigh when the term "Islamist" is used. Let me term it this way. I am a practicing Muslim. For me, nowhere in Islam is terrorism supported, and only through a radical and violent manipulation of text and doctrine can you provide support for terrorism. Because of this, despite any organization saying "we are Islamic!" I cannot give any credence to their statements or claims knowing full well that their message, purpose, and aims are all directly in conflict to Islamic teachings. For this reason, I am greatly opposed to using the term (as mentioned in Wikipedia, mainly because of its usage of "Islam") in cases of people, organizations, and otherwise. I did not at all mean my post as a personal attack, rather, if I was right, simply as a clarification that at least coming from a Muslim (for what it's worth) I believe it to be a misuse of terminology. If your intent is to attack Islam, which I don't believe it to be, then there is no point in debating this. If your intent is otherwise, which I believe it to be, then perhaps we can agree to defer usage of that term.

[guartz]

Tyr,

Most historians who allegedly deny holocaust usually just disagree with the 5 million figure and gas chambers. This is perhaps the case with Iranian President?

He gives founding Israelis too much credit, imho. The british didn't give up palestine that freely, the israel fanatics murdered and terrorized the land to win it. The first israeli president was considered a terrorist by the British. Also, going into such black history, as people call it, it is almost impossible not to mention the possibility of zionist involvement in ww1 and ww2.. though I dread to mention this in detail. Well, because I don't want to go to jail. Also in before Mel Gibson.

Anti-Semite is such a distorted word. Nobody who uses that even knows what semite is. It's an interesting confusion between religion and state, and the actual difference between the original jewish tribes and european jews.

Also, if you wanna talk about double standards - look into how American government defines terrorism. Thats a bucket of lulz.

[Charla]

First of all, I never said he was anti-semitic. I used the term "holocaust-denying" (or something along those lines), intending it effectively as derision and an explanation for why he's treated as, at best, a grandstanding attention whore in America.

Second, the creation of modern Israel was never intended as a reparation for the acts of the Third Reich. My admittedly incomplete understanding of the situation is that the British allowed Jews to migrate to their colony named Palestine, and then withdrew their claim to the colony. Arab states refused to accept the UN's division of the land and attacked, and Israel held on to most of it.

The Nazis kept very thorough records of everything that the SS did. Because of this, and moreso because Western schools make everyone hear about it for a few months straight (I wrote at least 3 book reports about the Holocaust), doubting the Holocaust is considered pretty similar to doubting gravity. Of course, I wouldn't put either one past the Scientologists.

Bush, and more importantly the extremely well-established American Jewish community, support Israeli possession of pretty much whatever they want. A-man supports eliminating the Israeli government from the pages of history (which, by the way, would actually be much harder than turning the whole country into a giant crater). Bush appears to have no particular opinion on Palestine beyond that they should quit blowing stuff up every day and get their damn country under control. A-man probably supports Palestinians moving into Jerusalem and Gaza too, but we never seem to hear about that over here. As such, while their positions may be symmetrical, A-man clearly comes off as the aggressor. Remember, Americans have short memories for everything that doesn't directly involve us. I didn't hear word one about either of the Israel's wars until I was in college (and then it was just one long-winded speech from my long-winded Geography teacher). By the way, has Bush taken any action at all towards Palestine? All America ever seems to do about the whole mess is make everyone show up at Camp David every few years and then stand around and watch every time a disco gets blown up or someone shoots a few rockets over the border.

edit @ that last post that showed up while I was typing:
I'm white, and I don't agree with the Nazis' use of the term Aryan. Even if they've hijacked your religion, Islamists still probably believe their own fundamentalist dogma, just as *someone* probably believed that they belonged to an inherently superior master race destined to subjugate or slaughter everyone else in the world. I wouldn't object to someone using the term "Aryan race" to talk about that extinct belief, because I know that it refers to an extinct belief, and not to my own skin.