 |
Faith Freedom International
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ampbreia
Joined: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 476
Location: U.S.A.
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2003 10:55 am Post subject: What should our policies be in the U.S. war on terrorism? |
 |
|
What should our policies as regards the U.S. war on terrorism be?
I say U.S. war on terrorism, because we do seem to be the only nation that is taking it absolutely seriously. Brittain has helped tremendously in Iraq but, oddly, back in Britain, they are letting Islamists take over their lives, so they have to be regarded as a bit of a weak point even if they mean well.
I wouldn’t want to be in the Presidents shoes. I really do think he’s doing his intelligent and vigilant best but the whole scenario is fraught with booby traps. For one thing, he must be suffering from a certain conflict of interests because, yes, he does have oil interests (that’s his family business outside of presidency) and, yes, he does have business ties with Saudi Arabia. But first, last, and always, he is an American patriot that fervently believes in the whole “for the people, by the people” package.
Should we have gone into Iraq? It’s value as a direct target in the war on terrorism is hotly debatable. Most Iraqi citizens will not miss Saddam and are probably glad he’s gone, but was getting rid of Saddam for them really worth American lives and funds when the Iraqis wouldn’t know freedom and self-accountability if it hit them over the heads anyway? No point in our forcing it on them if they don’t want it. They should do it for themselves or simply be content living under one dictatorship after another. I suspect we would be doing both them and us a favor by pulling out of Iraq – both military and aid – and leaving them to their own devices. See what they’ll make of it.
Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Syria, and Iran – in the forms of Hizbollah, Al Qaeda, Al-Muhajiroun, Hamas, Jemaah Islamiah, ect. - on the other hand, need to be made accountable for their terrorist actions against us. Too often when we are attacked by one of these groups, the money trail leads back to the government of the Jihadi terrorists’ homeland. That being the case, we should broadcast worldwide, that the next strike by them against our citizens in the name of Allah will be reciprocated by an attack against their most favored national/religious monument: Mecca for Saudi Arabia, Qom for Iran… Any of the Jihadis we capture alive should be interrogated for further information at Guantanomo Bay (for obvious reasons) and subjected to military tribunal instead of civil trial. Any dead Jihadis (“martyrs”) who have deliberately targeted civilians, should be publicly buried in pig dung to show our repugnance for them and their idea that such heinous acts as mass murder could possibly gain them paradise.
We should have nothing further to do with the Palestine/Israel issue at all. Whatever we do for or against either side is invariably used against us, so we should just wash our hands of the whole mess. The Palestinians don’t want peace anyhow, so they must be left to deal with the consequences of not having it. Maybe they will eventually learn something from that. As for the right or wrong of Israel being there, I DON’T CARE, but I do think Israelis have behaved more civilly than Palestinians overall, so my sympathies, if any, are with Israel.
We should not allow mosques and Islamic “charities” on American soil to receive funding from foreign governments. We KNOW those funds go to them with strings attached and are used to either support or incite terrorism against Americans and American values and to attempt the installation of Sharia upon us. We must NEVER allow Sharia law any place at all on American soil. It is far too anti-humanism to be tolerated in our citadel of freedom. Muslims who wish to follow Sharia, whether they be American-born or otherwise, should immigrate to lands that DO follow Sharia. They must not expect it to be implemented here, or special rules made just for them.
Foreign Muslims who are permitted to travel, work, or go to school in the U.S. must expect to live under the microscope of our security agents while they are here. Those who demonstrate or incite against Americans or American interests should be booted out posthaste. Islamic nations should only be allowed to have embassies here if we have them in their countries. Americans married to foreign Muslims should be able to seek protection in American embassies – as Americans – just as Muslims should be able to seek protection in Muslim embassies – as citizens of their respective Islamic nations. Any legal issues incumbent in such protections (such as child custody or civil laws) should be decided in an open court with a jury made up of representatives from both sides of the issue and an acceptable international compromise reached. No more BS about American embassies in Islamic nations being unable to protect Americans who happen to be married to Muslim nationals. Marriage shouldn’t change one’s citizenship status if it isn’t specifically and formally agreed to.
So what do you guys think? Would such policy changes be helpful to the U.S.? Any other suggestions?
_________________
It takes a heavy set of horns to support a good halo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
arifqurashi
Joined: 27 Feb 2002
Posts: 322
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 9:48 am Post subject: Re: What should our policies be in the U.S. war on terrorism |
|
|
George Bush handled the 911 tragedy very well, attacked Afghanistan but then he went wrong, handled Iraq war well, then went wrong. It is useless for people, no matter who they may be to think they can liberate a Muslim. Muslims by their very nature are bound to captivity, submission. You may pity the oppressed Shiia in a Sunni majority state but given the reverse the Shiia is as deadly in a majority. One way or the other the oppressed Muslims will always say that the form of oppression on them, is not the true kind, the kind that Mohammed and his gang implemented. They will always pine for that perfect suppression, one that in truth was brutal. Try telling that to any Muslim and observe the reaction.
| Ampbreia wrote: | | ...That being the case, we should broadcast worldwide, that the next strike by them against our citizens in the name of Allah will be reciprocated by an attack against their most favored national/religious monument: Mecca for Saudi Arabia, Qom for Iran... |
This solution of yours is wishful at best, this can never happen in the present free world and you know that. A better more real solution would be the education of the local American public about Islam. In fact if the world were to have easy access to Islam as we know it, then that will change many a "true Muslims" heart to the point of rejecting his/her cult.
| Ampbreia wrote: | | We should not allow mosques and Islamic charities on American soil to receive funding from foreign governments. |
I'd love to see this, but again this will never happen.
| Ampbreia wrote: | | We must NEVER allow Sharia law any place at all on American soil. |
Better, we must NEVER allow the THOUGHT of Sharia law, to do that everyone MUST know what this MOST INHUMANE LAW IS!!!
Ampbreia, your proposed solutions are strict and will never fly in the free world. The best solution is education, that should never be stopped. There must never be a law against a person for free speech. People who contradict ANY religion must be protected by the constitution. I want to one day COME OUT, I want to face a Muslim mullah, Muslim scholar, Muslim terrorist and tell him that MOHAMMED WAS AN ASSASSIN and a RAPIST and nothing more, his BOOK was and still is RUBBISH. When I can do this or if our societies can move towards this, then we will have achieved everything and then some. Your proposals will not have to be implemented. Islam will automatically DIE.
Arif |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DoctorNO
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 446
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I wonder if its possible to pass laws restricting religions of hate. If its possible to pass laws outlawing religious materials containing generalized hate statements. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
l l
Joined: 15 Aug 2002
Posts: 1625
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 11:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| DoctorNO wrote: | | I wonder if its possible to pass laws restricting religions of hate. If its possible to pass laws outlawing religious materials containing generalized hate statements. |
There are such laws in the USA, generally they are aplied to non Muslims.
Hate speach is wide spread in Islamic mosques in USA especially those with funds from Saudi arabia and lybia. Practice same in a Church or Synagogue and you wiil end in the slammer. If you do not get convicted, the court costs will turn you into a apauper.
best regards |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madam_Rouge
Joined: 28 Dec 2002
Posts: 176
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2003 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Deleted for offensive content.
Thank you for your cooperation.
SIncerely,
The Moderator's Team |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unknown 214
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 58
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 8:32 pm Post subject: Avoid tactical mistakes |
|
|
Historically, U.S. has chosen wrong tactical partners to fight the right wars. When fighting the aggression of Russians in Afghanistan, U.S supported Osama Bin Laden and trained him. Similarly, U.S supported and trained Saddam Hussein in early 1980s during the iran-iraq war. Now, U.S is pandering to the whims of Pakistan to fight Taliban and Al Qaeda.
U.S. knows that many terrorist outfits have found refuge in Pakistan. That ISI and Pakistani government are guilty of complicity with those outfits is another issue that U.S. must have clear evidence on. To get an idea of how devious Pakistani leaders are, and how their evil plans are perpetuated by their rabid religious zeal, one only has to read a review of an offensive book written by Brig. Malik called "The Quranic Concept of War". The foreword was written by the then Military Dictator of Pakistan, Zia Ul Haq. The current dictator Musharraf is a protege of Zia Ul Haq.
However, U.S. views Pakistani relationship as crucial to meeting its tactical goals in Afghanistan. U.S. chose to ignore Pakistani position on terrorism and has been continually lending financial support to Pakistan in return for Pakistan's support. Sounds very similar to what they did with Osama Bin Laden and his ilk.
On September 12th, 2001, one day after the fatal event, I had told my collegues that Osama and Omar would escape and find refuge in Pakistan. It was obvious to me. Eventually that happened. Why was it obvious to me? - because Pakistan does not view this as terrorism - to them this is jihad. Terrorism (jihad) has been made legitimate by their Mein Kampf "The Quranic Concept of War".
U.S cannot afford to make these tactical blunders and have a long-term strategy is dealing with the onslaught of islam on the bellwether, the bastion of the free world - the U.S.A.
Even if it is long and tortuous, U.S. should choose the right path knowing fully well that truth, and truth alone, will set this world free. And truth shall eventually previal.
See this reference about Saddam/CIA nexus:
Reference: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
See this reference for CIA/Pakistan nexus in creating Taliban:
http://emperors-clothes.com/docs/pak.htm
See this reference about CIA nexus with Osama, Omar, Saddam:
Reference: http://www.indiejournal.com/indiejournal/columns/omarbinladenhussein.htm
See these references for reviews on "Quranic Concept of War"
Reference: http://www.bharatvani.org/reviews/rev-quranic.html
Also see: http://www.swordoftruth.com/swordoftruth/archives/byauthor/aghosh/tqcowbbskm.html
Published by sify.com, Sept 14, 2003
Journalism source: Agence France-Presse (AFP)
Reference: http://headlines.sify.com/2492news1.html?headline=Pak~helped~Osama~against~US:~Report
| Quote: |
Pak helped Osama against US: Report
Washington: Pakistan helped al-Qaeda members launch their operations in Afghanistan in the 1990s and even secretly ran a major training camp used by Osama bin Laden's terror network, according to US intelligence documents made public here.
The documents, produced by the Defence Intelligence Agency in the fall of 2001 and declassified in a censored version this past week, also indicate that legendary Afghan guerrilla commander Ahmad Shah Masood may have been killed two days before the September 11 attacks because he had learned something about bin Laden's plan and "began to warn the West."
In its secret dispatches, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the National Security Archive, a non-profit research organisation here, the DIA warns that the documents represent only raw intelligence.
They nonetheless paint a complex picture of factional rivalry, in which Pakistan had tried to use the Taliban and al-Qaeda to promote its influence in war-torn Afghanistan -- only to eventually lose control over both of them.
"Taliban acceptance and approval of fundamentalist non-Afghans as part of their fighting force were merely an extension of Pakistani policy during the Soviet-Afghan war," said one of the DIA dispatches among US government agencies after the September 11 attacks but before US troops began their operation to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It said Pakistani agents "encouraged, facilitated and often escorted Arabs from the Middle East into Afghanistan."
To make the Arabs a more viable fighting force, Pakistan even built a training camp located outside the Afghan village of Zahawa, near the border between the two countries.
According to the DIA, the camp was built by Pakistani contractors funded by the Pakistan Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI), and protected by a local and influential Jadran tribal leader called Jalalludin.
"However, the real host of the facility was the Pakistani ISI," said one of the documents, which added that this arrangement raised "serious questions" about early ties between bin Laden and Pakistani intelligence.
The US military fired a volley of cruise missiles into the camp in August 1998 in retaliation to the terrorist bombings earlier that year of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that left 257 people dead.
The DIA said efforts by Islamabad to advance its interests through proxies had "seriously backfired" because it eventually lost control of the Taliban and bin Laden whose extremism was allowed "to grow unmolested."
Examining the assassination of powerful anti-Taliban commander Masood, the DIA suggested a connection between the killing and al-Qaedas plans to mount a massive new strike against Americans.
"Through Northern Alliance intelligence efforts, Masood gained limited knowledge regarding the intentions of the Saudi millionaire, Osama (bin Laden)... to perform a terrorist act against the US, on a scale larger than the 1998 bombing of the US Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania" and "began to warn the West," said one of the reports.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LanceThruster
Joined: 30 May 2003
Posts: 9
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 2:40 pm Post subject: Sauce for the goose |
|
|
I copied this post from the Ummah.com forum because I thought it was relevant to the thread here. It was a response to the Muslims there who basically cheered the destruction of 9/11 as come-uppance to American arrogance but were scandalized that someone might view the destruction of sites important to Muslims as payback. It is interesting to note that despite being a thoroughly active thread prior to posting this, the responses completely dried up after this was posted.
| Quote: | Originally posted by LanceThrusterX
Just as events of 9/11 were considered by some a daring and innovative strategy, there are others looking for equally daring strategies. Below is one such possibility.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AbuMubarak
lance, wallahi, if you mean that statement, may you be vaporized, sooner than later
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I most assuredly meant that statement. It merely pointed out that those so willing to dismiss the loss felt by others, would still be consumed by their own loss. Therefore a situation for laughing out loud [LOL] at someone else, would not be considered a laughing matter if it happened to you. Not all that surprising an observation, no? I am willing to risk my own vaporization from direct divine action, although will still be on guard from more earthly sources.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LanceThrusterX
We'll see how much LOL you do if Mecca ever gets vaporized.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I was describing the German term 'Schadenfreude'; the taking of pleasure in someone else's misfortune. I have no black ops or policymaker connections so there is no conceivable way it could be considered a threat from me.
It is quite common in here to express satisfaction at an agressors' comeupance. It's pretty much human nature. And when I said I feel a deep loss for the WTC towers and the Buddhist statues, you can take that at face value. I'd miss the pyramids too if they disappeared.
That's not to say that I am not shocked by the human toll, but as can be seen by the cataloging of death and destruction worldwide, death is a way of life for this planet. I think all but the most hard-hearted of us think that people on the whole are pretty decent [the various deities condemnation of humanity notwithstanding] and dislike the thought of any fellow human being suffering such senseless tragedies.
So while I may have more of a personally felt connection with those people I have some sort of common bond with, seeing people in other parts of the world suffer and die can be equally traumatic. However, an examination of the body count alone does not tell the whole story.
From the earliest tribes to the current nation-states and global superpowers, humans band together for protection as well as conquest. We've come a long way from our earlier notions of "the other", but no one can deny we've a long way to go still.
It's certainly difficult for any group to explain away all the shortcomings of their tribe, and the further back you go the more muddled it becomes. We are all a product of a world that places us firmly in the 'now', left to the people that brought us forth and the society they live in to bring us up to speed. Obviously our views are going to be shaped by those influences.
Knowledge of the world outside of our own helps expand that view somewhat, but it is still viewed through our own biases. Many valid points are made by those criticizing things done in the past, and how they carry forward to the present. There are even demands to 'fix' history such as the US returning the land stolen from Native Americans, but they are largely unworkable. How far would any nation have to go back to right wrongs to weaker peoples who were conquered, decimated, or absorbed?
In the present, though peace is desirable, power and aggression have the ability sometimes achieve what cannot be had any other way. It used to be that the larger and stronger the group we formed, the more protection it afforded us.
It is not quite so simple now. The level of destruction a small group can inflict on society has increased. While it is still in the area of unwelcome but bearable attrition, that could realistically change overnight. That change would bring about a greater desparation resulting in increasingly more severe actions taken to combat the perceived threat.
The violence taking place worldwide is due to perceived threats or the desire to further specific goals. At some point, whether the adversaries are on an equal footing or not, to ratchet up the force will be seen as the only viable solution. The old way of fighting where the opposing sides battle for supremacy but still allow the vanquished to walk away to lick their wounds might eventually become a thing of the past. If the weaker side never concedes defeat, then to fight for winner-take-all does not seem unreasonable.
The forces wishing to unseat the US from its position of power have that sense of purpose. And since that opposing order is more intertwined with people who pose no threat to the US [other than, often through no fault of their own, providing cover for the threat], it takes a much more unorthodox approach to achieve those goals.
Low intensity conflict and terrorism are the weapons of choice for those unable to initiate or sustain a higher level of violence to further their aims. Without debating the merits of either side, if no one gives up, compromises or settles disputes by negotiation alone, then this continued bloodshed will always have enough bodies for the meat grinder. People either come to accept a certain level of civilian casualties, or the non-combatants will demand more decisive action in dealing with the threat or different tactics to further the goal.
When the extreme option is pursued, it might be hard to turn back. There will be a case to be made for overkill because less extreme tactics have only maintained the status quo. It will boil down to who wants it more. Peace will result from the neutralization, or the subjagation, or the eradication of those who disrupt peace. Like I said, winner take all.
The fact that one side has at its core, a powerful and overriding religious component, that part must be addressed in some fashion. If the jihadis had their way, the 'dar al harb' [the non-Muslim world] would choose to embrace Islam. No more fighting needed, problem solved.
In the absence of that capitulation [or more accurately 'submission'], the Western world needs to defang the zealots in ways that make such zealotry impossible to maintain. If there is an inexhaustible supply, the only difference will be the intensity and frequency of the conflict as opposed to its cessation.
During the Cold War, there was a policy of mutually assured destruction [MAD]. Neither side was eager to risk the devestating consequences of full scale war [although more than ready to engage in smaller scale 'hot wars', most often by proxy].
If the destruction inflicted by unequal combatants nears the level of full scale war [massive damage to the cities, the economy, the society, the culture, the infrastructure, or the security and well being of its people], it will most likely provide the incentive to go for broke.
It means identifying something the opposing side holds near and dear. That's why so much terrorism is directed at children and those with no active participation in the fighting. We grudgingly understand the price paid by the warrior class, but are loathe bring such harsh realities to the innocent. Though the innocent suffer much on both sides, the circumstances by which they're subjected to such injustices differ. There are those who target them directly, and those whose targets sometimes bring the same destruction upon the innocent just as if they were targetted directly.
A tactic that has the possibility of gaining advantage based on something other than body count might be a MAD policy with the radical Muslim world. An ultimatum could be issued that any more religiously inspired attacks causing or meant to cause wide scale destruction and panic would result in the destruction of one of the holy sites of the aggressor. A set amount of time could be given to evacuate the area. Those choosing to actually see how well a human sheild works will have the opportunity.
There are a number of possible outcomes to this ploy. The whole of the Muslim world becomes radicalized and united in their defense of the holy sites and their waging of war against the enemies of god, resulting either in victory or defeat. Or the part of the Muslim world not supporting attacks against the West steps up its own efforts to root out the terrorists. It is possible that genuine good faith efforts will diffuse the threat of carrying out the ultimatum. Or that those committing terrorist acts choose not to risk the destruction of the holy site, possibly out of fear of condemnation from their own people for bringing it about. Or they could go on just as they have, commit some large scale act of terror, undeterred by such an ultimatum. I suppose there needs to be a scenario as well, whereby Western powers stage a terrorist attack to create a pretext for the attack on the holy site.
Though one poster mentioned that any destruction of the site would only result in the rebuilding of it [before mentioning that it could not be destroyed anyway], most of the stated views indicated that god was the protector of the holy sites and as such, their destruction was literally an impossibility.
This then makes for an interesting resolution. One is that the West cannot make good on their ultimatum. They try to rain destruction upon the site, but to no avail. Either they are inneffectual, or as was pointed out, they are destroyed in their brazen attempt to attack the things of god. It might even bring about the final ascendency of the Ummah. Those who would try to go against god woud see the futility of it once and for all. Looked at in that light, one would think that a challenge to attempt such a deed was in order. You can't argue with success.
The other is that the modern weapons of war demonstrate that their destructive power is more than the previous attempt that employed elephants. It woud establish that the divine protection was lacking or not deployed. Just as most Roman Catholics would probably still have a faith without the current Pope or the Vatican, most Muslims would maintain their faith despite what happened to the holy site. For the fundamentalist however, having the impossible happen would throw everything they held as certain in doubt. While some would rationalize it as the unexplainable will of god, I think most would have to concede that they were mistaken and that now all the actions they took with such fanatic certainty could not be divinely justified.
We might be despised and condemned [like we're not already] for such drastic action, but it would put to rest the notion that anyone was truly waging war in the service of their god. That might at least hold out the possibility of eventual peace because it would leave human beings to negotiate with each other instead of being proxy for god, who by all accounts does not compromise on anything.
I would be saddened that such a monumental piece of human history was lost and that good and faithful people would mourn one of their treasures, but would put my hopes in that some good would come from it. In the end, I would lose no more sleep over it than did those who destroyed the two Buddhist statues in Afghanistan. Just as they did, I would see it as contributing to the greater good and therefore justifiable.
But I'll have to admit, there might be a trace of 'Schadenfreude' towards those who used their religion for so long, to bring so much misery, to so many. But at least the nightingales will still be singing.
Before anyone goes ballistic, I am not advocating such a plan, and have no desire for its own sake to do harm to the things that others revere, but I find it a lesser evil than the current war of attrition. If destruction of a thing diminishes or prevents violence against persons, then I am willing to come out in support of people over things. I'd hope that most divine entities would agree. It's not as if they could not make everything right again in the blink of an eye. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
If the jihadis had their way, the 'dar al harb' [the non-Muslim world] would choose to embrace Islam. No more fighting needed, problem solved.
|
Not true. There would be a lot more warfare, probably including nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. There are different Muslim sects who are enemies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LanceThruster
Joined: 30 May 2003
Posts: 9
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 7:54 pm Post subject: Ein Khilafah! Ein Ummah! Ein Islam! |
|
|
| everybee wrote: | | Quote: |
If the jihadis had their way, the 'dar al harb' [the non-Muslim world] would choose to embrace Islam. No more fighting needed, problem solved.
|
Not true. There would be a lot more warfare, probably including nuclear, biological and chemical warfare. There are different Muslim sects who are enemies. |
Thank you for pointing that out. While *I* most certainly agree with you, I was addressing a forum crowd that claims that there is only one Islam [www.ummah.com] and no dissention among the ranks [the Ummah - though dissention is obviously handled by the most powerful of the ranks].
I sometimes have to put their own fantasy claims into words to at least show that I understand the benefits they foresee with such an occurance. That is why so many promote a return to the Khilafah [Muslim one-world rule]. No one there objected to the characterization. They also failed to comment or take issue with the [obvious truth in their mind of the] certainty that any attack on the holy sites would be thwarted and punished by Allah.
So, just as it would be impossible for Allah to allow any desecration of the holy sites, it would be equally as impossible that Islam practiced 'correctly' could be anything but succesful and completely unified [by anyone they consider as counting]. Woe to those who rock the boat. They will be dealt with accordingly. "Allah knows best!"  [that phrase always sounds to me like cheesy Madison Avenue copy] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Over here
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6795
bread wrote:
| Quote: |
Cruelty, the Shia in PAkistan are killed outright and have their mosques blown up by Sunni extremists. 20% of PAkistanis are Shia and live under far more repression under the rule os Sunnia that the repression the regular Iranian has to put up with. At least they are not kiled or wounded.
Shias persecute Sunnis in Iran and Sunnis persecute Shia outside Iran.
Both Shia and Sunnis persecute non-Muslims.
As far as I know, Iran is the only Islamic country were Shias are in power. (iraq night become the second because 2/3 are Shia, and they would win any election)
I rememeber this summer President Musharaf was visiting Europe and signing business ddeals worth billions and even convinced many European multi-nationals to come in Pakistan and open branches there, when some Sunnis teerorist group blew up a Shai mosque and killed some 80 people. Most of the deals were scared, because the Europeans were afraid for the safety of their national professionals which had to go to PAkistan.
Who was the loser here? Not the Europeans, which can go to India, or Brazil, Korea, China etc. But the Muslims of PAkistan were the real losers. They lost billions in contracts, and the chance to acquire more modern technology, etc.
See how an Islamic terrorist can screw up a whole economy?
|
I recently realized how much fighting exists between Sunnis, Shiites and other sects (just from reading things). They discussed this problem at Taliban Online, too.
See also
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6766 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LanceThruster
Joined: 30 May 2003
Posts: 9
Location: Los Angeles
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 9:14 pm Post subject: At that rate, there will be just 1 Muslim, not 'one' Ummah |
|
|
| everybee wrote: | Over here
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6795
bread wrote:
| Quote: |
Cruelty, the Shia in PAkistan are killed outright and have their mosques blown up by Sunni extremists. 20% of PAkistanis are Shia and live under far more repression under the rule os Sunnia that the repression the regular Iranian has to put up with. At least they are not kiled or wounded.
Shias persecute Sunnis in Iran and Sunnis persecute Shia outside Iran.
Both Shia and Sunnis persecute non-Muslims.
As far as I know, Iran is the only Islamic country were Shias are in power. (iraq night become the second because 2/3 are Shia, and they would win any election)
I rememeber this summer President Musharaf was visiting Europe and signing business ddeals worth billions and even convinced many European multi-nationals to come in Pakistan and open branches there, when some Sunnis teerorist group blew up a Shai mosque and killed some 80 people. Most of the deals were scared, because the Europeans were afraid for the safety of their national professionals which had to go to PAkistan.
Who was the loser here? Not the Europeans, which can go to India, or Brazil, Korea, China etc. But the Muslims of PAkistan were the real losers. They lost billions in contracts, and the chance to acquire more modern technology, etc.
See how an Islamic terrorist can screw up a whole economy?
|
I recently realized how much fighting exists between Sunnis, Shiites and other sects (just from reading things). They discussed this problem at Taliban Online, too.
See also
http://www.faithfreedom.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6766 |
Those are some very good links...thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ohmyrus
Joined: 19 Jun 2002
Posts: 625
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 25, 2003 6:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Ampy,
You wrote:
| Quote: | | That being the case, we should broadcast worldwide, that the next strike by them against our citizens in the name of Allah will be reciprocated by an attack against their most favored national/religious monument: Mecca for Saudi Arabia |
Not that I am advocating it, but it is my opinion that the destruction of Mecca would also destroy Islam. By that I mean the majority of Muslims would lose their faith.
The evidence I go by is the Japanese experience. This was what I was hinting at in my article, "The Mujahideen and the Samurai".
Up till 1945, the Japanese believed that their emperor was God. They also believed that they were descended from Gods. Yamashita told the captured British officers after the Fall of Singapore, "We are descended from Gods. You are descended from monkeys. In a war between Gods and monkeys, who do you think will win?"
They believed that Japan was invincible because their land was sacred and the Gods will protect them. It was this strong faith that led them to attack Pearl Harbor even though the US had a GDP 15 times that of Japan at that time. After the war, they gave up all these beliefs - very quickly. As for the Muslims, Mecca is so central to their faith. It is the Holiest City. Without Mecca, they cannot perform their Hajj and so cannot fully practice their religion. Praying 5 times a day to radioactive rubble will make another of their five pillars meaningless. They will soon wonder whether why Allah did not protect such an important city. Soon they will lose their faith.
Actually Islam, unknown to them, is a more idolous religion than Hinduism or Buddhism. The destruction of any city or idol will not make Hindus or Buddhist or Christian lose their faith.
_________________
Think |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ampbreia
Joined: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 476
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
What a fascinating and insightful historical analogy Omyrus! I think that if more people paid such close attention to history, whole generations would make fewer repeat mistakes and better understand the elements that lead either to progress or ruin. A very good argument in support of time travel technology in the schools someday. Ever heard of its applications in remote viewing? It could happen! 
Meanwhile, yes, I do think the destruction of Mecca would be the appropriate answer to further Islamist terrorism against us. It would undermine their belief that Mecca is invincible and take the wind right out of their sails. However, since it would be devastating to them emotionally, and many are actually very good (if deluded) people, it should be saved as a last resort and they should have ample warning. Nonetheless, their religion is both a strength and exploitable weakness to them as people, humanism, and freedom are to us. They put people as a secondary or even, sometimes, a non-concern as we put the importance of people ahead of any religious concern. So it is well met that when they attack our people, we attack their religious foundations and accoutrements.
_________________
It takes a heavy set of horns to support a good halo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Mecca is a place in Saudi Arabia. If all the buildings were destroyed, what would stop the Muslims from rebuilding the city? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ampbreia
Joined: 10 Oct 2002
Posts: 476
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Nothing. But what would replace the kabba and its black stone? And could they rebuild their faith in its invicibility? The Koran calls it indestructible; a point which so easily can be proven wrong.
_________________
It takes a heavy set of horns to support a good halo! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lurker
Joined: 10 Apr 2003
Posts: 28
Location: Northwest USA
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 26, 2003 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If destruction of whole or parts of Makka were considered or undertaken, destruction of outlying sites involved in the Hajj could also be part of the plan such as:
Cratering the entire plain of Arafat
Leveling the Mount of Mercy
Pulverising Mina
Perhaps one or more of these could be first targets to demonstrate seriousness. These sites are mostly free of people most of the year. Hitting them first could greatly diminish the number of deaths.
The city and Grand Mosque would still be available for escalation.
Perhaps also if the Grand Mosque and the Kaaba are destroyed, the ZamZam spring might stop flowing. I get the impression from other things I have read that the existence of this spring, flowing abundantly since time immemorial is probably the reason Makka was founded and remains a visible proof in the minds of the faithful of the sacred status of this city. ZanZam has a central role in the Hagar/Ishmael myth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 2:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Imagine if someone put a powerful hallucinogen in that spring water. Maybe some people would come up with a new religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mazdak
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 740
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 27, 2003 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It is a bigger problem than just affecting US, although US is the only nation actually doing something about it, all nations are negatively affected by the new waves of global islamist terrorism.
Hiding in a safe corner and expecting the "US military" to do all the job is as bad as supporting the terrorism. Everybody can do something to help. It can be as simple as educating masses of people as the islamist ideas grow on ignorance, thus by putting some light in the dark minds they become immune to islamist propaganda and lies. Or it can be as harsh as assuming the heroic task of identifying the most aggressive islamist elements worldwide and turning them over to justice.
President Bush is very right by saying "you are either with us or you are with the terrorist."
This is beyond random acts of terror, this is a declaration of war on the free world by the most damned ideology ever imposed on human kind.
So the responsibility doesn't lay on the US government's shoulders alone. Everybody must take a part in neutralizing the efforts of global terrorism and destroy the roots of the terrorist's lying machine propaganda.
The best starting point would be from the very inside. New laws are needed and mass deportations and huge camps are needed even more. We need to absolutely secure ourselves to take further steps next. It will be hard and will take a while but the outcome is very clear that terrorism will be defeated and not only that, it will also be the end of it for good.
No more playing Mr. nice guy with the back stabbing islamists. They need to be put on the spot. They should know by now that the land of the free and the brave doesn't take back stabbing from anybody. It stabs them back right up front in their evil hearts.
Liberty and Justice for all.
cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jihadjay
Joined: 27 Nov 2002
Posts: 1079
Location: JAPAN - Kansai
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 9:15 am Post subject: Wait a minute, please, some honesty |
|
|
Now, which nation allowed funds to go to the IRA for decades, yes, the United States.
Now, which nation supported the terrorist Contra movement in Nicaragua to kill children and blow up schools and hospitals, yes, the United States.
Now, which nation supported radical Islam and terrorism in Afghanistan, yes, the United States, alongside her allies, yes, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, oh, and democratic China. 
Now, which nation decided to protect Saudi Arabia despite nearly all nationals being Saudi, yes, the United States.
Couldn't the bombing of Cambodia, Vietnam, El Salvador, and countless other nations, be deemed to be terrorist, if not, why not, for these bombs killed more than September 11.
Now, which nation supported the terrorist KLA organisation in Kosovo, yes, you guessed it, the United States.
Oh, and guess what, while Americans are being killed in Afghanistan, they have just announced that they will give Pakistan billions in economic aid, very strange or stupid, but hey, don't Pakistan support terrorism in Kashmir controlled India, so that maybe why? Also, since the Taliban are using Pakistan, then why is America awarding Pakistan?
Strange how the United States killed millions in Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, and wow, President Clinton apologised for the killings of hundreds of thousands in Latin and Central America, with regards to past American leaders, oh well, sorry will have to do.
Don't get me wrong, I think the American people deserve so much better, and for too long they have been duped, just like the British, by corrupt leaders who are only concerned about wealth and vested interests.
But I do have to laugh when America now decides to tackle terrorism, for that nasty Mr. Osama Bin Laden once worked for the CIA and obtained American funding, strange world isn' it, oh well, must go, so have a nice day!!!!!!!!
Oh, I think the Yankees will win this year, or maybe Boston.
_________________
In support of Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, and other minorities in India.
LONG LIVE CHRISTIAN NAGALAND - AND OPEN YOUR EYES TO RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION IN BUDDHIST COUNTRIES. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| So you live in Japan, Jihadjay. Do you feel the Japanese did the right thing during World War II by allying themselves with the Nazis and trying to enslave the world? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mazdak
Joined: 31 Dec 1969
Posts: 740
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear JJ,
A nation is not one person. It is poor reasoning if we think of America as one person and that's where you get confused maybe as thinking how this person changes his attitude so many times. While in fact the different actions you see are the result of different people making decisions on those actions. And that's how it works in a free country. If the US was a one-way government like some kind of religion or dictatorship, it's actions would always be the same. In fact no thought would ever go into the actions, as in such dictatorial systems everything is pre-judged, and there is only one way of doing things. We see this in all islamist nations as they all follow the same pattern without any personal thought or respect for individuals.
Now in case of IRA funding it was in fact the Irish in the US who believe in their cause and send money to support the IRA. Very simple huh? does it make sense to call them the US nation? They did it and they have to deal with the consequences.
In case of Nicaragua there was a war, a war zone. And it is always ugly when it comes to war. If the communist take over the Nicaragua there will be blood shed of civilians in cold blood beyond any seen. Some believed in the "greater cause" of preventing that. My heart goes to the innocent victims of all wars. But again can you call the US nation the funder of those killings. Like deliberately targeting those kids?
Do you feel like a murderer because some of your tax money went towards the bullets that killed somebody somewhere? If so then everybody in the world is guilty of supporting the murders because the money they spent somehow might ended up buying bullets. Poor reasoning isn't it?
It is the mind behind the finger that pulls the trigger that kills.
Looking at the Afghanistan scenario, did you know the soviet-afghan war casualties were 100 times higher than all the victims of terrorism combined. And yes it is a fact that islamism was funded by some businesses to stop the spread of communism into the middle east. It was part of a much bigger war also called the cold war(not so cold after all)to topple the communism. And as a result 16 nations were free again, even though a lot of chaos is still going around, but that is normal, every time there is a change of system, chaos shows up and it goes away after a while. Only the very wise and the experienced and educated know that it is for a "greater cause." And it does work. If the communism had succeeded in it's conquest of the middle east the 2 million Afghan casualties would have added up to 20 million and more all over other nations too. Let' not forget the "prevented crimes" as they are hardly ever appreciated.
If a thief walks away because of good security and policing, nobody sees it, but if one goes through, the police takes the blame
One can see certain things with the third eye (mind) only. But all can see what is visible to the naked eye.
Reasoning is based on causes and effects.
Saudi Arabia is a bloody imperialist and a very oppressive regime. Saudis just like the US are not one person only, there is huge oil supply that is the main national income and the last recourse for Saudi economy, as their conquered nations have been plundered by them and drained out long time ago and are only suffering the ideological oppression and the poverty and ignorance that follows.
There is a mutual need for fossil energy and cash between the US and Saudis. The US pulled out it's troops from Saudi Arabia, no more protection. Just a business now. The terrorism part will be dealt with accordingly. In fact Saudi imperialism has failed so miserably that it really doesn't need any blows. They are truly cornered and are only surviving for their daily bread. Prisoners of their own oppressive ideology. Should we just bomb them and put them out their misery? hell no. Instead we give them a second chance to clean up their act and live in peace. We could wipe them out entirely at any given time within a matter of two weeks. That would be very unreasonable and cruel. And believe me if they push for the nuclear bombs and point it at us, we will hit them, that would be clean self defense. Nothing cruel about that. That would be the end of an evil empire called Saudi Arabia in the history books.
Vietnam war was also a part of the cold war, the communist killed 10 times more of their own nations, despite the high casualties, there is a higher number saved. Then again I am not justifying any killing or war. It is always ugly when it comes to war. And the reason we don't call it terrorism is because we didn't plan on killing random civilians and office workers.
A war is declared and a war zone is defined when it comes to war.
And it was also the very ending of the cold war Kosovo, as the eastern Europe collapsed and every nation started struggling for it's own identity. Sure it was a"war zone" again.
Now what is the problem with the politicians caring for the economy? It means jobs for everybody, it means prosperity. If our politicians were really corrupt they would be forcing ideologies or religions on people instead of actually providing the grounds for survival for everybody. There is absolutely nothing wrong with generating wealth, thus having good housing and food and education and fun for all. It is not the politicians job to force any ideology into people's head, people are free to choose and practice what they believe, and it is the politicians job to protect that freedom.
There is the religious channel on the TV and there is also 500 plus other channels.
If you say the leaders are wrong by caring for people's jobs, then what do you suggest it should be replaced with?
I believe taking care of one's self only proves that one is capable of taking care of others too. Feeding people with ideas alone would be a crime against humanity.
cheers
Last edited by Mazdak on Sun Sep 28, 2003 2:09 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
everybee
Joined: 03 May 2003
Posts: 858
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 28, 2003 1:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
We had to keep Nicaragua and Afganistan from becoming communist. If it wasn't for the USA your home country Japan would be communist right now, the Soviet Union would still exist and the rest of Europe would be part of the Soviet Union. There would be war between the communists and the free world right now, too. The whole world might have become victim to the communist system. Instead, thanks to the USA, the Soviet Union is no longer communist and the remaining communist countries are sufficiently contained.
Remember one thing, communists are atheists and make people give up religion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
