Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
it is clear that the terrorists believe it is a religious/cultural war. We will never say as much, and may be afraid to admit it to ourselves, out of political correctness, but also because to do so would seem to be in violation of our societal values.
To admit that it is a religious/cultural war from their side or from our side? "... may be afraid to admit it to ourselves" - who are "we" in this sentence? Are you personally afraid to admit well... "it"? (I am just not yet very clear on what "it" is)
Who was that guy that once said something like, "My Kingdom is not of this world"? Doesn't that statement suggest the speaker's support for the separation of church and state? If that person were considered to be an authoritative representative of a particular religion, then it would seem that any nation founded on the ideals of that religion would respect the separation of church and state.
Didn't that same guy also say something like, "If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting, that I might not be delivered up to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm." It sounds to me that the speaker was making a clear statement that wars on his behalf are not necessary. Wouldn't any suggestion of fighting such a war violate the principles of the religion?
Isn't it possible that the current conflict is really nothing more than what the president has stated? Isn't it possible that it really is a war against terrorism?
Dan Chisholm<br />SCJP 1.4<br /> <br /><a href="http://www.danchisholm.net/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Try my mock exam.</a>
Originally posted by <allabout>:
is the War on Terror a War on Islam?
It would be giving Bush the benefit of the doubt to call his "war on terror" a war on Islam; actually, it's too arbitrary and ill-conceived for that.
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Whether or not we choose to believe (or admit) this is a religious/cultural war, or whether we accept this from our standpoint, it is clear that the terrorists believe it is a religious/cultural war. We will never say as much, and may be afraid to admit it to ourselves, out of political correctness, but also because to do so would seem to be in violation of our societal values. But our societal values and political correctness certainly has little effect on how the terrorists choose to view things.
[ October 22, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
To Jason: Ok, so you are saying that "Western society in general and American society in particular is afraid to admit that that the war with the terrorists is a cultural/religious war".
Now what "religious war" means? How is it different from other wars? I mean, it is clear (more or less) what "religious" war means for terrorists, but what it means for us?
42
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
A question to Paul McKenna: what exactly do you mean by "this is a religious war"? Who is the enemy and how the victory will look like?
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Ashik Uzzaman
Director of Engineering, Twin Health, Mountain View, CA, USA
Originally posted by Ashik uzzaman:
This is a war against muslims, no doubt...![]()
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
Take a hard look at the cause of terror and you will find religion
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
6. Hidden Factor - The west probably has an edge in the fact that people everywhere would like to be free. And that is the biggest possible advantage the west has over the oppressive and hardline factions of Islam.
Originally posted by Vinod John:
This war is by no means a 100% war on terror, if that is the case why is Iraq and not Saudi, or Pakistan or Iran.
You may think it as oppression but most people in that country may consider that it is the best they have for the time being. Most peoples sentiments are build by their language, religion and custom. How foreigner like you can come any kind of conclusion ?
Paul, you observation are bit naive and one sided.
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
As Herb asked in an earlier post.. why did the US choose this occasion?
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
1. Iraq greatly weakened by ten years of sanctions.
2. US can hide behind terrorism flag.
3. US can justify on case of non-compliance with UN sanctions.
4. World is smaller than in 1955.
5. In 50's US had plenty of cheap oil.
6. GWB sees political advantage in toppling Saddam.
7. Soviet power no longer a threat.
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Originally posted by Paul McKenna:
in your opinion this is a war for oil/money/power
could you please provide me some evidence of the fact that US will be taking Iraq's oil for free because of its role in liberating Iraq
You perhaps dont know me well enough or you have been around on the ranch long enough
"I am from India"
"so I have a pretty good knowledge of what Islam is, what its basic tenets are and the problems of terrorism"
"Now coming to your point, in your opinion people in Afghanistan were happy under Taliban??? Oh! but didnt I see men and children jumping and dancing in joy when the American tanks rolled into Kabul. Perhaps they were American children made to dance in front of the cameras.. Oh! the student protests in Iran were also staged I suppose"
"My my.. how wrong the west is"
Originally posted by Ashik uzzaman:
This is a war against muslims, no doubt...![]()
Associate Instructor - Hofstra University
Amazon Top 750 reviewer - Blog - Unresolved References - Book Review Blog
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Well, we just invaded and occupied a country on what turned to be false intelligence data -- in spite of broad international protests.
Originally posted by Rufus BugleWeed:
Does anyone think that if the US pulls out tomorrow any outcome but the rise of a new war lord to power will occur?
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"the West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
Samuel P. Huntington
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Vinod John:
Yes, I relatively new. Are you some one I should be knowing to participate in the discussion here ?
How foreigner like you can come any kind of conclusion
Are you one of those Indians who still feel India would have been better off if the British had extended their stay ?
Why do you associate terrorism with Islam
Where they in majority ? or why did it not give US enough reason to invade Iran ? Iran is declared islamic state and Iraq has always been liberal. Afganistan was invaded because they were directly supporting terroist (and weren't ready to give up) and not because they were oppresive or Islamic.
Why don't read west's colonial past and tell me the answer ?.
Commentary From the Sidelines of history
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
Originally posted by Jason Menard:
In actuality, the Muslim nations should be dealing with extreme Wahhabism themselves, but they are unwilling to. Does that mean tacit approval and wide support for their beliefs and goals? You tell me.
[...]
I think it should mean that we drop the politically correct facade and openly admit that the followers of a particular brand (extreme Wahhabism) of a major religion actively seek our demise. If Wahhabis don't seek reform of these extreme elements, and Muslims don't speak up en masse against it and instead choose to look the other way, then what are our options? The roots of Islamic terrorism aren't oppression or Western foreign policy, rather the religious intolerance taught by extreme Wahhabism.
Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Most of dialogues, however, involve (naturally) people who *are* personally interested in outcome. So he proposed three possible degrees of "objectivity". I can be wrong with labels, because I do not remember them and they aren't that important anyway.
1) neutrality. This is a canonical case of objectivity when an arguer doesn't have any personal gain to pursuit, when he is basically a disinterested outsider.
2) open-mindness. When an arguer is willing/capable to change his opinion when presented with good arguments/counter-arguments.
3) fair-mindness. Ability to suspend judgment for a while and empathize with an opposite opinion, to give it a fair chance to be understood.
Well, something like that.
I guess I am somewhere between case 2 and case 3 in this "war on terror" thing. A lot of crap has been written on both sides,![]()
Uncontrolled vocabularies
"I try my best to make *all* my posts nice, even when I feel upset" -- Philippe Maquet
is the war on terror a religious war?
Let there be light.
doco