I've already stated in my previous post that the Brits are just as bad. Bush got everyone involved in a war that was nothing to do with them. Where were those weapons of mass distruction???
Les, your statement that Bush is a terrorist is way out of line. By any definition possible, you could not classify him as a terrorist. I think you are just taking the Euro dislike of Bush beyond reality. You have to realize the context of the mood of this nation after 9-11. The weapons of mass destruction may have been nothing more than Saddam bragging to impress his Arab buddies. I guess we will never know about the source or the veracity of that source. The fact remains that most of us here in the US wanted to strike out at something or someone other than a just some nut job in a cave in Afghanistan. Saddam became that target. When the vote came in Congress to attack Iraq even Joe Biden, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton voted for it. If you want to lay the current state of the world at the feet of any US President, it should probably be the biggest pacifist in my lifetime. That would be none other than Jimmy Carter. His actions, or shoud I say lack of action, in Iran gave the nut cases a nation of their own and gave hope to the other wackos out there. Now as you look at all the hot spots with wars around the world you find Islamic extremists in all of them. If the action of our pacifist president can bring this much hardship to the world almost three decades after the fact, then I'll side with our more belicose leaders. The failure of our current pacifist president to act on the nuclear weapon development in Iran may bring untold violence to all of us in the West. That is something I truly hope I am wrong about.
While the original statement at the beginning of this post is true, all of those events did ocurr and were carried out by Muslim extremists, what it fails to mention is simialr events carried out by people that are not muslim extremists. We go back to the early nineties and the wacko in Waco texas that was running some religious commune (Zackman, bad things do ocurr in the name of "Christianity") started out by killing a cop and then holding everyone at siege. Because of the states reponse to this nut job, another nut job (from Buffalo no less), blows up a buliding in Oklahoma City. Last year there was the Virginia Tech massacre, In 1989 in Montreal someone with a beef against women killed about 20 females at a school. The Columbine terrorist attack. So although it is true that young Muslim men did all the atrocious deeds stated at the beginning of the post, non-muslim men have performed many atrocious tasks all by themselves. As far as fighting in the name of religion. That is what the majority of wars are fought over. Christianity is one of the worst religions in this regard. Catholicism and Protestasan first fought each other, in the states they did the Salem witch hunts in the name of religion. During World War 2, the archbishop of Rome sided with Mussolini. Anytime a country goes to war, you always see the president praying to god. What is he praying for: Please help my boys kill your boys and come home safely. Would a real god respond favourably to this type of posturing. It's all bung...If you want to be religious, be religious, but don't try to force it on anyone else, muslim, jewish, christianity, catholism, agnostic, whatever. There is faults with every religion out there. All religions in my view are based on different interpretations of one originl manuscript which can never be verified as being accurate. Now people take their religion and form it to suit there own needs. Chrisitianity says to honor the ten commandments, oh, but you don't have to honour the one commandment that says keep my sabbath holy. How many Catholic Diocese have been investigated and found guilty of exploitation (and worse) of young boys. Then they run for cover and try to sweep it under the rug.
We will just have to agree to disagree about Bush. I am not european I am Welsh so I'm not taking any Euro stance against Bush. My view is that he needed a war and he went out and found one regardless of the source material being totally 100% false which the US & British goverments knew at the time. The mood of the american people after 9/11 could never be truly understood by a none american because we didn't have to go through it and nor should any American have had to go through it but I can understand the public need for revenge because that is only human. What I can't understand is why you went after a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. Everyone knew who did it yet you went after sadam because he was an easy target and that made Bush popular for a while. With regards to jimmy carter I can't comment because thats just out of my history knowledge. To a non american it seems that america thinks it has the right to police the world yet it should get it's own house in order first and stop lossing it's young soldiers in places that have nothing to do with them (this also goes for the british army as they are simply america's puppets and will do what ever america tells them).
Yes, indeed there have been domestic terrorist nut jobs (Timothy McVeigh, Columbine, The Unabomber, etc). Yes, there have been terrorists that were, or claimed to be, Christian (Jim Jones - The Jonestown Massacre, David Koresh - Branch Davidians, etc). These however are isolated incidents not related too each other. In most cases these people were not mainstream Christians, but rather "Cults" of some sort. The truth is that there is no current equivalent concept to Jihad (holy war), the Madrasas, Sharia laws, the Caliphate, promise of 72 virgins, etc., in modern religions other than Islam. To make that comparison you must go back to the 1600s, middle ages, and the Crusades. Again, focusing on modern times and our lives today, there is NO moral equivalent to radical Islamic Fundamentalists. Moral Equivalence = the act of presupposing that in any conflict, both sides have equally legitimate, compelling, and ethically-worthy motives and claims. Trying to find a moral equivalent between radical Islamic Fundamentalists and modern Christianity, Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, is a common mistake of the left, progressives, liberals, and Democrats. Although some don't want to admit it, often there IS an ethical hierarchy between two sides of a conflict (Good vs Evil). For example there is no moral equivalent between Al Qaeda and "Freedom Fighters" as some liberals have tried to argue. Additionally, acts of Palestinian terrorism, such as suicide bombing, and the retaliatory acts the Israeli security forces are not morally equivalent. To my earlier point, I've never had a Christian Church authority urge me to strap a bomb on my back or murder non-believers. Pacifism is one thing, but not wanting to recognize radical Islamic Fundamentalists & terrorism for what it is – can be a very, callow, dangerous, and apathetic; not to mention a serious lack of knowledge and a deadly case of denial. My point is not to force religion on anyone, instead we must face the facts that radical Islam must be recognized and dealt with.
The important point I wanted to make earlier and I am sure some of the other folks on here were trying to make is that groups like Al Qaeda are extreme 'cult like' groups, just much better funded. We shouldn't cast suspicion on an entire religion because of these nutjobs. Stopping people at airports etc should be based on intelligence of associations with known groups, training camps for terrorists etc.
Overall, we're not too far off in our opinions. I just think safety always trumps the chance that someone might be insulted or get their feelings hurt. Also notice that I did not cast suspicion on an entire religion, only the brand of radical Islam. More specifically, I see a dangerous trend in political correctness from the liberal left. For example, the Obama administration is no longer allowing the use of the terms "War on Terror", "Long War", or "Global War on Terror" (GWOT) by its officials. Instead it prefers something more pleasant, "Overseas Contingency Operation" which is purely ridiculous….
If there is a young male muslim and an 80 year old swedish lady, and I had to pick which one was the better allocation of airport security resources to search, I think it would be fairly intuitive. The #1 priority of any nations leader is to protect their population. Bush, Obama, Blair, doesn't matter. The US was attacked that day. Bush needed to protect his citizens. As it stood he has in a war losing civilians in downtown New York. Attacking Afghanistan/Iraq gave the terrorists an American target to attack without out all the hassle of travelling. By attacking them, he put American boots on the soil in enemy lands. Gave them a target. So now he was fighting terrorists with Marines and the Army in Afghanistan/Iraq rather than with civilians in New York. Clearly that is a better situation in a variety of ways. The President is responsible for Americans, not for the rest of the world. He should behave in the US's best interest. Just as Blair should behave in Britain's best interest. War has become too hygenic. Back in the good ole days, war sucked. Now there is some stupid expectations that somehow no civilians should be injured in a urban guerilla warfare scenario. It's impossible to win under those conditions. Afghanistan has proven impossible to take throughout history. Google Hindu Kush. Afghanistan has never lost a war. And they are going to win this one too. Not because we can't win. But because the public doesn't have the stomach to win a gruesome and ugly war. Not saying that is bad, because to finish this thing, I think that you'd be talking about millions of dead people. But the allies should stop fooling themselves into believing that half measures will result in full success.
Very well put Dave. In terms of a half waged war, Vietnam taught us that you can't win a war with one hand tied behind you. That was what we tried to do in 'Nam and it didn't work then and it sure as hell won't work now. As for the US sticking its nose in places that it doesn't belong. I would have to agree that we do have a history of that. We were not attacked by Irag directly so the logic goes that we should have stayed out of Iraq. But if you check your history you will find that Germany did not directly attack the US in 1940 either. We stuck our noses in there against a country that did not directly attack us. Good thing or else a lot of these posts would be in German instead of English.
The better question that should be asked second after that observation is does the young male muslim have known or suspected ties to extremist or terrorist groups? If he doesn't then there is no reasonable justification to search either of them beyond standard screening. Just because you see a young muslim man doesn't mean you have to suspect him. That's an incredibly wide net to cast.
