Iran Crisis

Blacksword wrote: marktheshark wrote: Blacksword wrote: James Lee wrote: As The Doctor is no longer with us, I'll imagine what he might have said:"I have nothing personal against Muslims, individually or as a whole. I just think it would serve the greater good for them to be permanantly removed from the equation." Well, his absence from this discussion is therefore no great loss. Not that I contest his right to that opinion. The extremists on the Muslim side of the fence hold the same views about Jews and Christians..probably. No one side is exclusively right or wrong.      I don't know about that Blackie. Christians and Jews don't go killing people for not being Christians and Jews. The extremist Muslims hate us simply for what we are. They hate us for our culture, our lifestyle. They hate us for MTV, they hate us for Madonna kissing Britney on TV, they hate us for R&R (Prog too, I imagine), they hate us for pornography, they hate us for our tolerance toward gays. The list goes on.      Hiya Mark. Well I dont want to go round in circles here, but I'm sceptical of the claim they hate us 'because' of our lifestyle. Our leaders would have us believe they hate us for the reasons you describe, but I beieve the problem the extremists - and it is really just the extremists - have with us is our double standards when it comes to how we treat the Arab/Muslim world. Iran is a recent and perhaps less relevant example. They are after all breaking no international laws in pursuing nuclear power. In fact they are breaking no rules - technically - if they are seeking to make WMD too. Our unconditional support of Israel in their occupation of Palestine is at the heart of the problem too. A serious double standard prevails there too. I'm no expert on the Quoran, but I know that Christians are not portrayed as enemies of Islam in those verses. In fact quite the opposite. While I'll never advocate any act of terror, we will never resolve the ill feeling until we take a step back and look at the real reasons that a terror threat exists.

sleeper wrote: Blacksword wrote: marktheshark wrote: Blacksword wrote: James Lee wrote: As The Doctor is no longer with us, I'll imagine what he might have said:"I have nothing personal against Muslims, individually or as a whole. I just think it would serve the greater good for them to be permanantly removed from the equation." Well, his absence from this discussion is therefore no great loss. Not that I contest his right to that opinion. The extremists on the Muslim side of the fence hold the same views about Jews and Christians..probably. No one side is exclusively right or wrong.      I don't know about that Blackie. Christians and Jews don't go killing people for not being Christians and Jews. The extremist Muslims hate us simply for what we are. They hate us for our culture, our lifestyle. They hate us for MTV, they hate us for Madonna kissing Britney on TV, they hate us for R&R (Prog too, I imagine), they hate us for pornography, they hate us for our tolerance toward gays. The list goes on.      Hiya Mark. Well I dont want to go round in circles here, but I'm sceptical of the claim they hate us 'because' of our lifestyle. Our leaders would have us believe they hate us for the reasons you describe, but I beieve the problem the extremists - and it is really just the extremists - have with us is our double standards when it comes to how we treat the Arab/Muslim world. Iran is a recent and perhaps less relevant example. They are after all breaking no international laws in pursuing nuclear power. In fact they are breaking no rules - technically - if they are seeking to make WMD too. Our unconditional support of Israel in their occupation of Palestine is at the heart of the problem too. A serious double standard prevails there too. I'm no expert on the Quoran, but I know that Christians are not portrayed as enemies of Islam in those verses. In fact quite the opposite. While I'll never advocate any act of terror, we will never resolve the ill feeling until we take a step back and look at the real reasons that a terror threat exists.        I dont know if you saw it Blaksword, but over Christmas channel 4 ran a series called The Root Of All Evil? aimed at religion in general. Though the Oxford professor who was presenting was being very confrontational, his interview with a converted Muslim (from Jeudasim) was worrying as what he said amounted to "we wont stop until you fix your sociaty". IF all extremist are like this thats not very rasureing to any chance of peace.

Hi Sleeper.

Yeah, I did see some of it. I'm an athiest, but I did not like that professors aproach. It was confrontational, and this detracted from the the credibility of his arguments IMO.

There are extremists in all religions and within all political ideologies. I would agree that extrenism needs to be confronted, but it bothers me that we are so selective in who we choose to confront. We confronted Iraq,because of their appaling human rights record - we always knew they had no WMD as far as I'm concerned - but we're good buddies with Saudi and supposadly with Pakistan. Both these nations abuse human rights and are bigger breeding grounds for terrorists than Iraq ever was; that is for terror acts committed outside those countries. 9/11 springs to mind, as most of the hi-jackers were Saudi.
    

sleeper wrote: Blacksword wrote: marktheshark wrote: Blacksword wrote: James Lee wrote: As The Doctor is no longer with us, I'll imagine what he might have said:"I have nothing personal against Muslims, individually or as a whole. I just think it would serve the greater good for them to be permanantly removed from the equation." Well, his absence from this discussion is therefore no great loss. Not that I contest his right to that opinion. The extremists on the Muslim side of the fence hold the same views about Jews and Christians..probably. No one side is exclusively right or wrong.      I don't know about that Blackie. Christians and Jews don't go killing people for not being Christians and Jews. The extremist Muslims hate us simply for what we are. They hate us for our culture, our lifestyle. They hate us for MTV, they hate us for Madonna kissing Britney on TV, they hate us for R&R (Prog too, I imagine), they hate us for pornography, they hate us for our tolerance toward gays. The list goes on.      Hiya Mark. Well I dont want to go round in circles here, but I'm sceptical of the claim they hate us 'because' of our lifestyle. Our leaders would have us believe they hate us for the reasons you describe, but I beieve the problem the extremists - and it is really just the extremists - have with us is our double standards when it comes to how we treat the Arab/Muslim world. Iran is a recent and perhaps less relevant example. They are after all breaking no international laws in pursuing nuclear power. In fact they are breaking no rules - technically - if they are seeking to make WMD too. Our unconditional support of Israel in their occupation of Palestine is at the heart of the problem too. A serious double standard prevails there too. I'm no expert on the Quoran, but I know that Christians are not portrayed as enemies of Islam in those verses. In fact quite the opposite. While I'll never advocate any act of terror, we will never resolve the ill feeling until we take a step back and look at the real reasons that a terror threat exists.        I dont know if you saw it Blaksword, but over Christmas channel 4 ran a series called The Root Of All Evil? aimed at religion in general. Though the Oxford professor who was presenting was being very confrontational, his interview with a converted Muslim (from Jeudasim) was worrying as what he said amounted to "we wont stop until you fix your sociaty". IF all extremist are like this thats not very rasureing to any chance of peace.

I don't really agree with that. Religion has always seemed to be the scapegoat for evil deeds. I think religion is more a justification and not a motivation. IMO the motivation is simply power. Do you really think Bin Laden gives a rat's flatulence about Mohammed and virgins? If that were the case why would he be contantly hiding and not just make a martre of himself?

Or how about Stalin or even Hussein himself? They weren't religious. Or even on a lower level say someone like Charles Manson. You really think he believed all that crap about the Beatles and Revelations?

Put yourself in these wacko's shoes. You got all these people, mostly destitute and down trodden, believing everything you say and most likely will do everything you tell them. The temptation to toy with that is going to be pretty stiff.

No to me it's power, pure and simple. Religion is just an excuse and not the motive.
    

I don't fully accept that the confrontation is between any group of nations, or opposing religions. I'm haunted by the possibility that something fundamental and irreconcilable exists. People are people, sure, but what if we cannot hope to reach a workable understanding without something very important being lost on either side?

Try to put aside the US vs. Terrorism rhetoric and examine the European or SE Asian situation. Could it be that some cultures can be truly incompatible, and that tolerance may have as much of a potential for blindness as extremism?

These are the doubts that currently haunt a generally compassionate, open-minded, and healthily skeptical man.

^ It may not be news in GB but its just about the #1 news story here in the states.

Edited by NetsNJFan - May 06 2006 at 22:43

The simple concept here is that the US can't go to war without a draft. There are simply not enough troops. Bush would be insane to propose a draft. So what's the other option? That's right, long range bombing and possible..............nuclear strikes. Ever wonder why that option, however insane it is, was not taken off the table? That's why.

Edited by stonebeard - May 06 2006 at 23:08

Here in the Netherlands it's only sideline news.

Skillfully, the pro war contingent on this forum avoids the real issue. This is not about the EU not playing ball with the US, it's about the prospect of a very serious war that has the potential of directictly affecting all of our lives. There is perhaps an unspoken assumption that bombing countries 'in case' they ever attack us, will have only positive consequences. The implications of attacking Iran - especially with nuclear weapons - is going to set a new precedent. After the bombs were dropped on Japan we have seen a doctrine of deterence, rather than pre-emption. Arguably, that maintained peace for so long between the west and the Soviets.

If the US or Israel uses these weapons in a conflict in Iran it will send a signal to the rest of the non nuclear world that they are fair game for the US. In order to counter that, we would see a large number of countries 'tooling up' Regional conflicts could go nuclear very quickly. The world would cease to recognise nuclear weapons as being anything than just another weapon for open use in any battle. The Russians would panic and re-start their weapons development program - if they haven't already - and before we know it, the prospect of global nuclear war would be more real than EVER before.

And, what for?? Control of oil? Establishing a 'new world order'? eliminating a terror threat? Would it be worth it? To live in a world where war is constant, and nuclearvwar ultimately likely, where recession is the norm due to problems with countries fighting over resources. Where one nation dominates with fear?

People dont seem to appreciate the gravity of this situation. People seem to think that attacking Iran, or hitting them with sanctions is going to lessen the risk of terror on the US and her allies. It wont. They think a war will solve a problem and everything will be great for the free world thereafter. It wont. Seriously, has nothing been learnt about the ethos of terrorism at all since time began? Terrorism may never win out, but it will certainly never end. The more provoke the disenchanted and the extrememists, the more we must expect them to attack us.

References have been made hear to 'good and evil' and how pacifists would have turned a blind eye to Hitler. These are huge and unfair generalisations about those who oppose military action on Iran. If folk can seriously not make the distinction between the need to crush the Nazis, and the insanity of attacking Iran, then maybe there is no hope. Perhaps we should look more closely at the paralells between Hitlers manipulation of the media in his rise to power, and the way the Bush administration has spun news, lied about terror threats, foreign weapons capability in order to push through his Patriot Act, justify the illegal detention of terror suspects without charge, and bolster cases for war in violation of international law.


    

Edited by Blacksword - May 07 2006 at 05:33

marktheshark wrote: When was the last time we've heard a peep out of Gadafi? I don't see the need to use nukes ourselves. I know it's been mentioned, but it's highly doubtful we would. And if Bush were to, even I would label him a criminal. To me nukes are a coward's weapon and the only nukes I can see being used are the ones from Iran if they get them!

I see no need for it either. In terms of busting 'bunkers' the current generation of these nukes would not serve that purpose, as they only burrow 20 feet before detonation, so the force of the blast and the fall out generated would be above land. The bunkers would not be scratched - depending on their depth - and the casualties would be above ground. It's clear though, that the option is under consideration, and the US, rance and the UK have all said they would consider using nukes of some kind in the ME if the operational need arose. What that need actually is, is a subjective issue. Thats what worries me.
    

James Lee wrote: just an observation: extremists don't need to be provoked. The mere existence of the perceived enemy is all the provocation they need....and comparisons with Hitler are inevitable when the topic of appeasement is raised.When I think of the Bush presidency, I can't help remembering that the people got sick of the boy who cried wolf just before the actual wolf appeared. But that may be an indictment of the people as much as it is of one troublemaking boy.

    The mere existence of the perceived enemy is all the provocation they need

I guess thats all the provocation we've needed to invade Iraq, and Afghanistan, so you may be right, althuogh I dont think thats quite what you meant.

My point is, james that Bush & co are extremists in the eyes of those we call extremists. This is where the line between good and evil is blurred, and what side you come down on purely depends on what side of the geographical fence you sit on.

It's worth remembering also, that we only have the word of our leaders that what happened on 9/11 (for instance) was carried out by the extremists we fight against. Lets face it, our leaders record for telling us the truth is questionable.