DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: The_Professor on August 17, 2007, 12:03:44 PM
-
Rejecting radical Islam -- one man's journey
Story Highlights
Man says he became radical Muslim during college a decade ago
"Ideas that I once thought unthinkable ... seemed like good ideas to me"
Oregon group he worked for has since been shut down by the government
Organization maintains it's a charity, seeks to have name cleared
Daveed Gartenstein-Ross was born to Jewish parents in Ashland, Oregon. A college friend introduced him to Islam.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The path to faith often takes unexpected twists. In the case of Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, the road went through three of the world's major religions -- Judaism, Islam and Christianity -- and ultimately brought him to the FBI.
Born to Jewish parents who call themselves mystics, he grew up in what he calls the "liberal hippie Mecca" of Ashland, Oregon, a town of about 20,000 near the California border. It was in this ultraliberal intellectual environment that a young Gartenstein-Ross experimented with a radical form of Islam that eventually led him to shun music, reject women's rights and even refuse to touch dogs because he believed this was "according to God's will."
"I began to pray for the mujahedeen, for these stateless warriors who were trying to topple secular governments," he said.
His journey began in 1997, when as a junior at Wake Forest University, he began to examine his own spiritual identity after experiencing a couple of brushes with death caused by illness. "That kind of thing can cause spiritual discomfort and make you reevaluate what it is that you're living for," he told CNN in an upcoming documentary called "God's Warriors." Watch behind-the-scenes with CNN's Amanpour for the making of the TV special ?
A college friend introduced him to Islam and he was intrigued by its peaceful message. "Islam was a very simple faith and as I learned more and more about it, it seemed more and more fascinating to me," he said.
That fall, he called home to tell his parents he was planning to become a Muslim.
"We felt it was OK," his father Moshe Ross said. "We were glad that he was going to study something and hopefully seriously. And we were happy with Islam."
When Gartenstein-Ross returned to Ashland, he got his first taste of radicalization when an imam at a local makeshift mosque blasted Western society.
"His argument was that the West was so inherently corrupt, so inherently anti-Islamic, that if we stayed in this society, then inevitably our faith would be eroded," said Gartenstein-Ross, who chronicled his experience in a book called "My Year Inside Radical Islam."
The humble mosque would soon move to a hilltop headquarters in Ashland, thanks to financial support from a Saudi Arabian charity known as the Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation, which has since been shut down by U.S. and Saudi authorities for alleged terror ties. Lawyers for Al-Haramain have denied those charges and have filed suit against the U.S. government seeking to have its name cleared.
Gartenstein-Ross said a man named Pete Seda, who ran the charity's local office, offered him a job. Seda became his mentor and within a few months Gartenstein-Ross said he found himself agreeing with extreme views. At Al-Haramain, he said he saw the religion which he had embraced for its tolerance become obsessed with rules and ideology.
"What I didn't expect was that over time my ideas would fall into line with theirs," he said. "I wasn't to shake hands with women. I wasn't to pet a dog. I wasn't to wear shorts that came up above my knees. But conversely, my pants legs couldn't be too long."
But at times, he still had doubts about some beliefs espoused at the mosque. Whenever he questioned the rules, his co-workers would tell him his own views were irrelevant. The view was that "your moral inclinations do not matter. All that matters is whether this is what's right according to God's will," said Gartenstein-Ross.
In 1999 he left his job at Al-Haramain for law school at New York University. Away from his co-workers, he was free to question the radical doctrines he'd learned in Oregon and meet with others about spirituality, including Christians. A year later, he converted to Christianity and was eventually baptized in the Baptist church.
It was a decision he took extremely seriously because he said his colleagues at Al-Haramain had preached that leaving Islam was punishable by death.
"This conversion out of Islam toward Christianity was certainly not one I took lightly in any way, because I realized there could be repercussions from it," he said.
The Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation would come up in his life again, but in a very different fashion. His first job after law school was as a clerk with the U.S. Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia. He had to undergo a background check and listed Al-Haramain as a previous employer. Soon, the FBI was quizzing him about the group.
Two years later, in 2004, federal agents raided the Ashland offices of Al-Haramain. When he learned of the bust, Gartenstein-Ross says he contacted the FBI. "I knew about some of Al-Haramain's contempt for U.S. tax law. I knew about the support these guys had for the mujahedeen in Chechnya," he said.
His mentor, Pete Seda, and another top Al-Haramain official now face conspiracy and tax fraud charges for allegedly helping provide $150,000 in funds meant for Muslim fighters in Chechnya. Lawyers for the group say it renounces terrorism, and in a lawsuit filed against the government last week, Al-Haramain says it's a "charitable organization that seeks to promote greater understanding of the Islamic religion."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/15/daveed.godswarriors/index.html
-
I actually bought and read the book and I feel like asking for my money back. The whole book went by and absolutely nothing happened. In his adventures in Islam, he came to know peripherally some guy who was a bagman for radical Islamists. How you can make a book out of that is more a tribute to marketing than to investigative journalism or literature.
-
I actually bought and read the book and I feel like asking for my money back. The whole book went by and absolutely nothing happened. ...
But of course, radical Islam is something to embrace, and anyways there apparently weren't enough stories of how they were killing those infidel Americans
-
It is OK Sirs. We know you'll never read it anyway. It probably doesn't have pictures or lots of cartoon drawings. ;)
-
And apparently not enough stories involving the killing of Americans and its soldiers. I guess I'll stick with Harry Potter 8)
-
I was a fanatic...I know their thinking, says former radical Islamist
By HASSAN BUTT
When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network - a series of British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology - I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the Government for our actions, those who pushed this "Blair's bombs" line did our propaganda work for us.
More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.
The attempts to cause mass destruction in London and Glasgow are so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that they are likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again saying that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy.
For example, on Saturday on Radio 4's Today programme, the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: "What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq."
I left the British Jihadi Network in February 2006 because I realised that its members had simply become mindless killers. But if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again.
Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the July 7 bombings, and I were both part of the network - I met him on two occasions.
And though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many others to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain and abroad was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary worldwide Islamic state that would dispense Islamic justice.
If we were interested in justice, you may ask, how did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting such a (flawed) Utopian goal?
How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion?
There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a model of the world in which you are either a believer or an infidel.
Formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion: they are considered to be one and the same.
For centuries, the reasoning of Islamic jurists has set down rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.
But what radicals and extremists do is to take this two steps further.
- Their first step has been to argue that, since there is no pure Islamic state, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr (The Land of Unbelief).
- Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world.
Along with many of my former peers, I was taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief.
In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.
The notion of a global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain.
For decades, radicals have been exploiting the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state - typically by starting debate with the question: "Are you British or Muslim?"
But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Muslim institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology.
They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex truth that Islam can be interpreted as condoning violence against the unbeliever - and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace and hope that all of this debate will go away.
This has left the territory open for radicals to claim as their own. I should know because, as a former extremist recruiter, I repeatedly came across those who had tried to raise these issues with mosque authorities only to be banned from their grounds.
Every time this happened it felt like a moral and religious victory for us because it served as a recruiting sergeant for extremism.
Outside Britain, there are those who try to reverse this two-step revisionism.
A handful of scholars from the Middle East have tried to put radicalism back in the box by saying that the rules of war devised so long ago by Islamic jurists were always conceived with the existence of an Islamic state in mind, a state which would supposedly regulate jihad in a responsible Islamic fashion.
In other words, individual Muslims don't have the authority to go around declaring global war in the name of Islam.
But there is a more fundamental reasoning that has struck me as a far more potent argument because it involves recognising the reality of the world: Muslims don't actually live in the bipolar world of the Middle Ages any more.
The fact is that Muslims in Britain are citizens of this country. We are no longer migrants in a Land of Unbelief.
For my generation, we were born here, raised here, schooled here, we work here and we'll stay here.
But more than that, on a historically unprecedented scale, Muslims in Britain have been allowed to assert their religious identity through clothing, the construction of mosques, the building of cemeteries and equal rights in law.
However, it isn't enough for responsible Muslims to say that, because they feel at home in Britain, they can simply ignore those passages of the Koran which instruct on killing unbelievers.
Because so many in the Muslim community refuse to challenge centuries-old theological arguments, the tensions between Islamic theology and the modern world grow larger every day.
I believe that the issue of terrorism can be easily demystified if Muslims and non-Muslims start openly to discuss the ideas that fuel terrorism.
Crucially, the Muslim community in Britain must slap itself awake from its state of denial and realise there is no shame in admitting the extremism within our families, communities and worldwide co-religionists.
If our country is going to take on radicals and violent extremists, Muslim scholars must go back to the books and come forward with a refashioned set of rules and a revised understanding of the rights and responsibilities of Muslims whose homes and souls are firmly planted in what I'd like to term the Land of Co-existence.
And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.
Article (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/text/print.html?in_article_id=465570&in_page_id=1770)
-
I should write a book about living in the Islamic world and marrying into a Muslim family. I can invent a bunch of colorful, dramatic crap to make it more appealing for sensationalists and Neocons to read. God knows it would be too boring for people to accept that most of them are just human beings trying to live their life - go to work, come home, go to work, come home, go buy groceries, have a weekend, go to work... :D
-
Ahh, so lemme see if I get this straight. Any and all direct commentary and 1st hand knowledge of radical Islam and its manifestations are simply "colorful, dramatic crap", while anything that references how evil and insidious Western Civilization is, led by messers the U.S. & Israel are in facilitating the radical & murderous behavior within the Muslim community is Gospel truth.
Just as long as I understand the parameters, of what we're reading :-\
-
Sirs, you're getting really good at reading messages within messages that aren't really there.
Ahh, so lemme see if I get this straight. Any and all direct commentary and 1st hand knowledge of radical Islam and its manifestations are simply "colorful, dramatic crap", while anything that references how evil and insidious Western Civilization is, led by messers the U.S. & Israel are in facilitating the radical & murderous behavior within the Muslim community is Gospel truth.
Just as long as I understand the parameters, of what we're reading :-\
-
Well Miss Henny, with all due respec, how is one supposed to read "I can invent a bunch of colorful, dramatic crap to make it more appealing for sensationalists and Neocons to read." following the articles that the Professor & I posted?? What "message" would you be attempting to convey, outside of what appeared to be the obvious??
-
Well Miss Henny, with all due respec, how is one supposed to read "I can invent a bunch of colorful, dramatic crap to make it more appealing for sensationalists and Neocons to read." following the articles that the Professor & I posted?? What "message" would you be attempting to convey, outside of what appeared to be the obvious??
Perhaps you're right - I didn't clarify my thought.
Many people like books about Islamic life - reading about things they've never been exposed to. Since there is a market for books on the topic of Islam - be it terrorism or just life - I could write a book about my experience. But my experience is just so non-dramatic on the scale measured by the books that are popular these days, I would have to "invent a bunch of colorful dramatic crap" to make it interesting for the people who tend to buy books in that market.
However, I didn't not mean that "any and all direct commentary and 1st hand knowledge of radical Islam and its manisfestations are "colorful, dramatic crap."
Better?
-
Much. And you're right, simply living life isn't going to facilitate book sales. Why do you think there's so much hubaloo just prior to the next political "tell-all" book from the latest politician or cabinet member. If you're goal is to sell as many books as possible, you have to hype it up. If the goal is to simply tell your story, then what generates book sales is where your story is taking place....home, making great Islamic meals, or as a previous member within radical Islam.
Does one mandate over the other, a making up of a bunch of colorful dramatic crap?? And you know/assume it's made up because.......? It couldn't simply be accurate 1st hand knowledge?
-
>>Ahh, so lemme see if I get this straight. Any and all direct commentary and 1st hand knowledge of radical Islam and its manifestations are simply "colorful, dramatic crap", while anything that references how evil and insidious Western Civilization is, led by messers the U.S. & Israel are in facilitating the radical & murderous behavior within the Muslim community is Gospel truth.<<
Bingo.
-
Don't worry, sirs and Rich, when Osama publishes his memoirs there'll be lots of stories about killing Americans for you guys to get off on. Lots of drama and violence. Lots of PROOF that hey these guys really do kill people.
Not that you guys will read it anyway because (1) it's way beyond your Grade 2 reading skills and (2) it'll probably explain WHY these guys are so pissed off at America and Israel.
-
Don't worry, sirs and Rich, when Osama publishes his memoirs there'll be lots of stories about killing Americans for you guys to get off on.
That's funny, I could have sworn it was the likes of you getting off on how much ball they have, how "heroic" they are, and in how many american soldiers they can kill. You must be talking to yourself, I can only assume. Personally, I"ll "gett off" on how many terrorists we can kill, not to be confused with those accidentally killed in war. The latter clarification is necessary when dealing with Tee's twisted grasp of reality and belief of what folks like myself & Rich supposedly think & believe
-
<<And when this new theological territory is opened up, Western Muslims will be able to liberate themselves from defunct models of the world, rewrite the rules of interaction and perhaps we will discover that the concept of killing in the name of Islam is no more than an anachronism.>>
I think so. They'll leave all the killing to Westerners who can do it in the name of "democracy." That way the Jews can have all the land n the West Bank, the Americans and British can have all the oil in Iraq AND Iran, and the Muslims, bereft of both land AND oil, can assume their rightful place as the servants and water-carriers for those whom God truly meant to rule over them. This makes a lot of sense: stop all that killing. Leave it to the Americans and the Israelis. Submit. Hey, isn't that what "Islam" means? Submission? So what are ya waiting for, dummies? SUBMIT!
-
LOL Tee's next comedy set will be later tonight at 10. 3 drink minimum :D
-
Thanks, sirs, glad you could appreciate it. I like to mix a little humour in with the sarcasm, makes it go down a little easier.
-
Absolutely Tee. It's always nostalgic to get a taste of some hyperbolic over-the-top 3 Stooges-like kinda humor
-
It is OK Sirs. We know you'll never read it anyway. It probably doesn't have pictures or lots of cartoon drawings. ;)
Actually, you are mistaken. I read it this afternoon. Fascinating book in that it lets you in on more about living in Islamic countries. JS, you are always saying that Americans should learn more about these issues and yet you hammer those who do? Isn't that paradoxical?
-
Ahh, so lemme see if I get this straight. Any and all direct commentary and 1st hand knowledge of radical Islam and its manifestations are simply "colorful, dramatic crap", while anything that references how evil and insidious Western Civilization is, led by messers the U.S. & Israel are in facilitating the radical & murderous behavior within the Muslim community is Gospel truth.
Just as long as I understand the parameters, of what we're reading :-\
Sirs makes a good point in that the same parameters or criteria should be applied in both cases and I seriously wonder if it is.
-
Thanks, Professor
-
<<Sirs makes a good point in that the same parameters or criteria should be applied in both cases and I seriously wonder if it is.>>
sirs is full of shit because he really wants to see only one-sided criticism of the Muslim world and universal praise for America. Example: he bitches endlessly at any criticism I or anyone else will voice about America, but when I venture the same kind of criticism of the Iranian theocracy or the torture manual of al Qaeda in Iraq, he questions my sincerity. He can't handle an even-handed approach because he's over-invested emotionally in America. ANY criticism of America is "anti-American," irrational "hatred" or "America-bashing," although he is uniformly negative about all Muslims except those who agree to blindly follow the American-Zionist line and not make any waves.
-
<<Sirs makes a good point in that the same parameters or criteria should be applied in both cases and I seriously wonder if it is.>>
sirs is full of shit because he really wants to see only one-sided criticism of the Muslim world and universal praise for America.
Another perfect example of Tee's erroneous grasp of what sirs wants/thinks. Let's count the ways ;)
Example: he bitches endlessly at any criticism I or anyone else will voice about America, but when I venture the same kind of criticism of the Iranian theocracy or the torture manual of al Qaeda in Iraq, he questions my sincerity.
That's because you show ZILCH objectivy by doing precisely what you reference above, 24/7, minus any substantive criticism of Islamic militant terrorists. You condem them ONLY when there happens to be a manual found, but only long enough to catch a breath and dive right back into how evil America is supposed to be, minus such manuals, and ignoring when abuses are discovered and then prosecuted. Yea, i bitch at your endless meritless diatribes aimed at our "low hanging fruit", when the real enemy who actually targets women and children, to inflict max casualties pretty much gets a pass. And anyone who actually has intimate understanding of the hateful ideology radical Islam is, is denounced as largely making things up, or not making enough up to warrant your interest. You wouldn't know "even handed" if it was a swarm of killer bees, and you were covered in honey.
He can't handle an even-handed approach because he's over-invested emotionally in America. ANY criticism of America is "anti-American," irrational "hatred" or "America-bashing,"
Wrong again. Any criticism of America based on lies, gross distortions, and hyperbolic accusations, minus any validity to them is "Anti-American", "iirational hatred", and "America bashing". Criticism of America based on substantive arguements that have merit and credibility to them are in no way Anti-American, and more so someone excercising their 1st amendment rights to dissent. BIG difference between Prince's criticisms of this Government and your foaming at the mouth irrational diatribes.
although he is uniformly negative about all Muslims except those who agree to blindly follow the American-Zionist line and not make any waves.
Boy, you wanted to set a record for how wrong you can be in just 1 post. I'm uniformly negative about all Muslim MILITANTS. You know, the ones who want to kill in the name of Allah, who look forward to however many virgins they think is on the other side of their homicide bombing effort. Unless you can show some quotable support to your accusation, I guess we can chalk that one up to yet another of your laundry list of lies
-
<< you show ZILCH objectivy by doing precisely what you reference above, 24/7, minus any substantive criticism of Islamic militant terrorists. You condem them ONLY when there happens to be a manual found . . . >>
This guy can't even keep his bullshit consistent from one sentence to the next. First I'm "minus any substantive criticism of Islamic militant terrorists" but in the very next sentence he admits that I condemn them for torture.
<< . . . and ignoring when abuses are discovered and then prosecuted. >>
Actually, far from ignoring the prosecution of abuses, I demonstrate how they affect only scapegoats drawn from the lowest ranks, and draw minimal slap-on-the-wrist "punishments" for serious crimes. To date, as I have pointed out, not one single death penalty.
<<Yea, i bitch at your endless meritless diatribes aimed at our "low hanging fruit",>>
Thank you for admitting it.
<< . . . when the real enemy who actually targets women and children, to inflict max casualties pretty much gets a pass.>>
The "real enemy" who targets women and children and elderly, as in Falluja and elsewhere, is the U.S.A.
<< And anyone who actually has intimate understanding of the hateful ideology radical Islam is, is denounced as largely making things up or not making enough up to warrant your interest. >>
In the case of the book we were discussing, which I actually read and you didn't, the author had minimal connection with the "hateful ideology of radical Islam" (which you, incidentally, know absolutely nothing about) and tried to parlay a very humdrum story into a sensationalist adventure, which it was not.
<<Any criticism of America based on lies, gross distortions, and hyperbolic accusations, minus any validity to them is "Anti-American", "iirational hatred", and "America bashing". >>
Great. My criticism of America is based on fact: the fact of an illegal war in violation of the Charter of the United Nations; the fact of 100,000 or more dead Iraqis; the fact of torture in Abu Ghraib and elsewhere; the fact of illegal detention in inhuman conditions of prisoners of war; the fact of lying bastards claiming a threat that never existed even in their own minds.
<<Criticism of America based on substantive arguements that have merit and credibility to them are in no way Anti-American>>
Thank you.
<<BIG difference between Prince's criticisms of this Government and your foaming at the mouth irrational diatribes.>>
Yeah, Prince doesn't go nearly far enough in denouncing the bastards.
<<I'm uniformly negative about all Muslim MILITANTS. You know, the ones who want to kill in the name of Allah, who look forward to however many virgins they think is on the other side of their homicide bombing effort. >>
Exactly. If they wanted to kill in the name of God and George Bush, they would be fucking saints.
<< Unless you can show some quotable support to your accusation, I guess we can chalk that one up to yet another of your laundry list of lies>>
I thought you just admitted to all of my accusations in your own post here.
-
See what I mean. Squat objectivity. 1 reference to a torture manual, as if that's all it takes to offset the 99% rest of the time condemning the U.S for atrocities supposedly even worse than AlQeada, minus of course any evidence, outside of throwing out the term "Abu Graib", again as if that's all it takes to condemn the U.S. for AlQeada like torturing, minus of course the fact such abuses are prosecuted. And even then, those prosecuted are apparently merely "scapegoats," because Tee just knows that the orders were comng from Rumsefeld, Cheney, Bush even. Because, they're just that evil. Priceless And yea, your "criticisms" are pretty much gross distortions, hyperbolic opinions, and downright lies, so yea, they fall into the realm of Anti-American & irrational. But at least you're proud of it, so you have that going for you
-
".........the fact of an illegal war in violation of the Charter of the United Nations...."
How so?
Didn't the UN have a chance to vote against it?
-
<<Didn't the UN have a chance to vote against it?>>
No. The U.S. withdrew its draft resolution before it could be put to a vote to avoid the humiliation of a vote and a rejection by the UN Security Council.
Besides which, your question is ridiculous. If the Crown Attorney charges that Joe Blow committed murder in violation of section n of the Criminal Code, your question is akin to asking, how could Joe Blow violate a section of the Criminal Code, didn't Parliament have a chance to vote against his crime?
Once the Charter is ratified by the members, as it was, it was the law. A breach of the law is a breach of the law. It does NOT require that the members of the law-making body thereafter vote to approve or reject the activities of a particular member, otherwise if each action had to be put to a vote, why would they bother to enact the general law in the form of the Charter?
As it happens, the US, in order to legitimize its crime, had PLANNED to put the thing to a UN vote, but pulled out at the last minute, KNOWING (despite all the pressure it had put on the other Security Council members) that it would be rejected. This PROVES that they even knew it was probably illegal and yet they went ahead.
-
<<See what I mean. Squat objectivity. 1 reference to a torture manual, as if that's all it takes to offset the 99% rest of the time condemning the U.S for atrocities supposedly even worse than AlQeada, minus of course any evidence, outside of throwing out the term "Abu Graib", again as if that's all it takes to condemn the U.S. for AlQeada like torturing, minus of course the fact such abuses are prosecuted. And even then, those prosecuted are apparently merely "scapegoats," because Tee just knows that the orders were comng from Rumsefeld, Cheney, Bush even. Because, they're just that evil. Priceless And yea, your "criticisms" are pretty much gross distortions, hyperbolic opinions, and downright lies, so yea, they fall into the realm of Anti-American & irrational. But at least you're proud of it, so you have that going for you>>
Your problem is that you are unwilling or unable to live in the real world, so you have to fabricate facts wholesale on an ongoing basis to support your weird alternative reality world.
For starters, you claim I speak with zero objectivity, i.e. from a completely one-sided perspective. Then when that lie is blown up in your face, you minimize the criticism I have levelled against the Muslims. For example, here in this thread, though I referenced on a minute's notice (1) the al Qaeda in Iraq torture manual (2) the torture and murder of Canadian journalist Zahra Kazemi and (3) the torture and murder of Bahai women in Iranian jails, you acknowldege here {quoting your own exact words) " 1 reference to a torture manual, as if that's all it takes." Clearly lying to give the impression that my criticism of the Muslim side was limited to one single instance.
More examples of your lying and bullshit from this very thread: "minus of course any evidence, outside of throwing out the term "Abu Graib", again as if that's all it takes to condemn the U.S. for AlQeada like torturing . . . " Of course there were many more instances of U.S. torture and higher responsibility, all of them referenced by me in our exchanges: the Gonzalez memo, the hidden Abu Ghraib photos and videos, being roughly 90% of the total haul, Baghram Base, rendition to other countries such as Syria and Egypt and Jordan for "outsourced" torture, secret CIA torture chambers all over the world, the "President's" reservation to himself of the right to define what is torture, and the CIA involvement in the torture operations of both Shi'a and Sunni Resistance groups. But in your lying bullshit view of things, I "throw out" the term "Abu Ghraib" "as if that's all it takes." Trying to bullshit everyone into believing that "Abu Ghraib" is the only fact I have to go on. I also started a whole new thread on the tortures inflicted on Jose Padilla and that certainly was not in Abu Ghraib, it was right here in the U.S.A. in a North Carolina brig. Torture has come to the mainland.
<<because Tee just knows that the orders were comng from Rumsefeld, Cheney, Bush even. Because, they're just that evil. Priceless >>
More fucking lies and bullshit. (Honest to God, sirs, are you capable of posting anything else but?) Tee surmises that the orders came down from the top because of the widespread pervasiveness of the incidents of torture, the similarity of many of the torture techniques, the Gonzales torture memo rationalizing the use of torture (actually written by John Koo) , the lack of any prosecution of senior officers, the minimal slap-on-the-wrist nature of the penalties handed out and the low-ranking status of all the victims of these show trials. Certainly the reasons I gave for my opinions were well known to you. In other posts you derisively refer to them as "Tee-leaf reading" and that's OK - - nobody says you have to agree with them. But here you are just plain lying - - although you know WHY I believe what I believe, you try to convince others with your lies and bullshit that I "know" the orders came down from the top "because they are . . . evil." This is really why nobody can take you seriously. You just make up stuff as it suits you, even when it's obvious that you yourself know that it's fake. I guess what I'm trying to say is that you are not even a very good liar.
<<And yea, your "criticisms" are pretty much gross distortions . . .>>
Every one of them is fact-based, and other than simply denying the fact or fact I based it on, you have never been able to disprove even one fact on which my criticism was based.
<< . . . hyperbolic opinions>>
guilty as charged on some occasions, my Lord. George Bush is not really a chimp but a human being. The U.S. military are not Neanderthals, they are just low-hanging fruit, high school dropouts and general dead-enders. Nothing wrong with a little hyperbole to make a point, especially when the other side is drowning in its own hyperbole.
<< . . . and downright lies>>
Still waiting for even one to be exposed, sirs. Since I've exposed at least three of yours in just this very post, and probably dozens more in other posts, I'm still waiting for you to point out just ONE lie of mine.
<< so yea, they fall into the realm of Anti-American>>
I think we've been through this before. To be anti-militarist and anti-fascist is NOT to be anti-American, except in the eyes of American militarists and fascists for whom America is or should be both fascist and militaristic. Militarism and fascism are anathema to the spirit of the Constitution of the U.S.A. and are profoundly UN-American. You and the people you resemble and/or represent are the greatest threat to America that it will ever face. Much bigger than the much-hyped (by your ilk) "threat" of Islam, which has no hope in hell of destroying America. I fear that Lanya and other wonderful folks like her are fighting a valiant but losing battle and America is fucked, not by Muslims but by YOU. Liars and bullshit artists to the core, people constitutionally unable to tell the truth if it goes against their politics. To oppose you and people like you and everything you stand for is to defend the highest ideals of America including the Constitution and the rule of law.
<< . . . & irrational. >>
I forgot that I was dealing with someone who writes his own dictionary, someone for whom "all" does not mean "all," "victim" does not mean "victim" and apparently "irrational" must mean "cogent, factual and compelling." WHATever.
-
<<See what I mean. Squat objectivity. 1 reference to a torture manual, as if that's all it takes to offset the 99% rest of the time condemning the U.S for atrocities supposedly even worse than AlQeada, minus of course any evidence, outside of throwing out the term "Abu Graib", again as if that's all it takes to condemn the U.S. for AlQeada like torturing, minus of course the fact such abuses are prosecuted. And even then, those prosecuted are apparently merely "scapegoats," because Tee just knows that the orders were comng from Rumsefeld, Cheney, Bush even. Because, they're just that evil. Priceless And yea, your "criticisms" are pretty much gross distortions, hyperbolic opinions, and downright lies, so yea, they fall into the realm of Anti-American & irrational. But at least you're proud of it, so you have that going for you>>
Your problem is that you are unwilling or unable to live in the real world, so you have to fabricate facts wholesale on an ongoing basis to support your weird alternative reality world. For starters, you claim I speak with zero objectivity, i.e. from a completely one-sided perspective.
More of that projection phenomenon I see. So you'll demonstrate for us where you've presented postive contributions by our military, right? By this administration on the war against terror, right? And no, citing "Well, they only killed X amount when they probably wanted to kill XX amount", doesn't suffice. 1 reference to 1 manual doesn't suffice either. So, show us this "objectivity" with an even handed approach. don't worry, I'm not going to hold my breath.
More examples of your lying and bullshit from this very thread: "minus of course any evidence, outside of throwing out the term "Abu Graib", again as if that's all it takes to condemn the U.S. for AlQeada like torturing . . . " Of course there were many more instances of U.S. torture and higher responsibility, all of them referenced by me in our exchanges: the Gonzalez memo, the hidden Abu Ghraib photos and videos, being roughly 90% of the total haul, Baghram Base, rendition to other countries such as Syria and Egypt and Jordan for "outsourced" torture, secret CIA torture chambers all over the world, the "President's" reservation to himself of the right to define what is torture, and the CIA involvement in the torture operations of both Shi'a and Sunni Resistance groups. But in your lying bullshit view of things, I "throw out" the term "Abu Ghraib" "as if that's all it takes." Trying to bullshit everyone into believing that "Abu Ghraib" is the only fact I have to go on. I also started a whole new thread on the tortures inflicted on Jose Padilla and that certainly was not in Abu Ghraib, it was right here in the U.S.A. in a North Carolina brig. Torture has come to the mainland.
So, your "examples" continue to be your own twisted conclusions, inferred by defendents' attorneys, hidden, prosecuted, or performed by other countries, when that's been going on for a while now. Gotta love it. Yes, chalk full of "objectivty"
<<because Tee just knows that the orders were comng from Rumsefeld, Cheney, Bush even. Because, they're just that evil. Priceless >>
More fucking lies and bullshit. Tee surmises that the orders came down from the top because of the widespread pervasiveness of the incidents of torture, the similarity of many of the torture techniques, the Gonzales torture memo rationalizing the use of torture (actually written by John Koo) , the lack of any prosecution of senior officers, the minimal slap-on-the-wrist nature of the penalties handed out and the low-ranking status of all the victims of these show trials.
LOL, see? Unless it's messers Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and other higher ups doing the perp walk, then any and all others prosecuted are just slaps on the wrist and skapegoats, because....well because Tee just knows. It just can't be those invloved doing the crimes as the criminals. They're just low hanging fruit, unable to tie their shoes unless they're ordered to by Rumsfeld. Frellin priceless 8)
<<And yea, your "criticisms" are pretty much gross distortions . . .>>
Every one of them is fact-based, and .......
ROFL. Give me a minute to catch my breath from that one.
other than simply denying the fact or fact I based it on, you have never been able to disprove even one fact on which my criticism was based.
Been there, done that.....adnauseum. Your refusal to accept facts to the contrary of your already made up mind of how evil Bush and our American military is supposed to be, isn't my problem.
Still waiting for even one to be exposed, sirs.
Been there, done that too. Bush lying us into war, Bush stealing the election, American military a group of low hanging fruit, just egging to rape at a moment's notice, Widepread torture at the hands of our military with the commands for such coming practically from the WH. All those lies, and then some, exposed to their utter core for what they are, irrational, hyperbolic, and most often, bald faced lies, since so many facts to the contrary have dispelled them. But be proud of your consistency. That's a hallmark we've all grown comfortable with.........and which also makes debunking them, so much the easier
-
<<So you'll demonstrate for us where you've presented postive contributions by our military, right? >>
Positive contributions? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND?? They invade another country in blatant violation of international law, specifically of the Charter of the United Nations, KILL between 100,000 and 600,000 Iraqis in the process, maim hundreds of thousands more, continue to occupy the country illegally, imprison, torture and kill its inhabitants and you're really looking for "positive contributions?" What's next, find the "positive contributions" of the Nazi occupation of Poland?
<<So, your "examples" continue to be your own twisted conclusions, inferred by defendents' attorneys, hidden, prosecuted, or performed by other countries, when that's been going on for a while now. Gotta love it. Yes, chalk full of "objectivty">>
How is the Gonzalez memo "my own twisted conclusion?" What "defendants' attorneys" "inferred" it into existence? How were the tortures at Baghram Base ether my own twisted conclusion or inferred by defendants' attorneys? Are you just plain freaking insane? I never asked you to agree with me as to the significance of these facts, you are just too fucking stupid to put them all together, and THAT'S OK, I am not objecting to your stupidity. I object to your big fucking lie that the ONLY supporting fact I had to go on was Abu Ghraib, when you knew all along I had many more facts to back up my case.
<< . . . see? Unless it's messers Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, and other higher ups doing the perp walk, then any and all others prosecuted are just slaps on the wrist and skapegoats, because....well because Tee just knows. >>
Again, because the torture was just too widespread, because if it had not been ordered from the top down, heads would have rolled and because torture was excused and justified at the highest executive levels. NOT because "well because Tee just knows"
==============================================================================
sirs, you can lie and bullshit all you like. This exchange just confirms what I said earlier. You lie, your lies are exposed. You change the subject to broaden the issues beyond your original lies and you expect me to take the bait. I have systematically exposed each and every lie with which you tried to misrepresent my prior posts in this thread. So your response is to try to broaden the issue into "Bush stole the election." "Bush lied us into war," etc. ALL OF WHICH I have demonstrated beyond the doubt of any reasonable person over and over again in past correspondence, but I am not going to fall for it this time.
You posted a shitload of specific lies in this thread, each and every one of which I have now systematically demolished one at a time. I am not going to get drawn into a defence of every other opinion I ever posted before, each of which I have extensively defended to the best of my ability at the time. Enough's enough. Have a nice afternoon.
-
<<So you'll demonstrate for us where you've presented postive contributions by our military, right? >>
Positive contributions? ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND??
That's what I thought. They're evil, no ifs, ands, buts, and most importantly, regardless any facts to the contrary. I appreciate you validating my point over and over. Thank you, and you too have a fine day
-
It is OK Sirs. We know you'll never read it anyway. It probably doesn't have pictures or lots of cartoon drawings. ;)
Actually, you are mistaken. I read it this afternoon. Fascinating book in that it lets you in on more about living in Islamic countries. JS, you are always saying that Americans should learn more about these issues and yet you hammer those who do? Isn't that paradoxical?
First of all, I made a joke about Sirs reading material. It was a joke that he apparently got because he made a joke right back. I wasn't hammering anyone, just using a little humor.
Second, the book you quoted to me in an earlier conversation was written by someone who absolutely hates Islam. I simply gave you the background of the author. It is one thing to become better read and gain an understanding of Islam and the Islamic world, but to do so through reading books by authors who write hate, why bother? Would you try and gain a better understanding of African-Americans by reading Klan literature? Or a book by David Duke?
And now for the article Sirs posted.
Sorry guys, this is not an article of a one-time insider who has turned against his former life in repentence. Your first clue is that this article is published in the Daily Mail. But more to the point is the person himself. This is where "critical thinking" (I know you hate that term) or if you rather call it "research" helps.
Hassan Butt is, how would one put this? An "attention whore." Yes, he knew a few people that were (or are) true fanatics and terrorists. Yet, Hassan was never really anyone of importance. So when he saw that extremist Muslim rhetoric wasn't getting him the spotlight that he craved, he simply flipped positions. He went from one extremist view all the way to another. Now he is attacking the Islamic doctrine he supposedly wished to defend with terrorism only a short while ago.
Note that he has never been arrested, despite all of this "inside" knowledge of the 7/7 terrorist cells and work for the Taliban in Pakistan. There are people in Guantanamo who have been there for years who have not claimed as much insider knowledge as Hassan Butt.
You might want to read this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/19/nbut19.xml) from the Telegraph, a right-wing British newspaper which is respected for journalism (compared to the Mail, which is a tabloid joke). Hassan is pretty much considered a liar.
-
In less caustic terms, giving the young man further room for growth, I nonetheless note that the embrace and later rejection of a faith, as JS rightly implies, is dependent for for its heuristic potential on the character of the person involved and the ardor and articulateness of the journey, as well as the motive forces, as JS reminds us. In this regard, none surpasses James Joyce's journey FROM Catholicism, in my opinion. As pertinent here, this jamolke simply ain't on the same planet.
-
What's a jamolke?
-
It is OK Sirs. We know you'll never read it anyway. It probably doesn't have pictures or lots of cartoon drawings. ;)
Actually, you are mistaken. I read it this afternoon. Fascinating book in that it lets you in on more about living in Islamic countries. JS, you are always saying that Americans should learn more about these issues and yet you hammer those who do? Isn't that paradoxical?
First of all, I made a joke about Sirs reading material. It was a joke that he apparently got because he made a joke right back. I wasn't hammering anyone, just using a little humor.
Second, the book you quoted to me in an earlier conversation was written by someone who absolutely hates Islam. I simply gave you the background of the author. It is one thing to become better read and gain an understanding of Islam and the Islamic world, but to do so through reading books by authors who write hate, why bother? Would you try and gain a better understanding of African-Americans by reading Klan literature? Or a book by David Duke?
And now for the article Sirs posted.
Sorry guys, this is not an article of a one-time insider who has turned against his former life in repentence. Your first clue is that this article is published in the Daily Mail. But more to the point is the person himself. This is where "critical thinking" (I know you hate that term) or if you rather call it "research" helps.
Hassan Butt is, how would one put this? An "attention whore." Yes, he knew a few people that were (or are) true fanatics and terrorists. Yet, Hassan was never really anyone of importance. So when he saw that extremist Muslim rhetoric wasn't getting him the spotlight that he craved, he simply flipped positions. He went from one extremist view all the way to another. Now he is attacking the Islamic doctrine he supposedly wished to defend with terrorism only a short while ago.
Note that he has never been arrested, despite all of this "inside" knowledge of the 7/7 terrorist cells and work for the Taliban in Pakistan. There are people in Guantanamo who have been there for years who have not claimed as much insider knowledge as Hassan Butt.
You might want to read this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/19/nbut19.xml) from the Telegraph, a right-wing British newspaper which is respected for journalism (compared to the Mail, which is a tabloid joke). Hassan is pretty much considered a liar.
I should have expected this response. I hoped not, but received it anyway.
I see Richie has bowed out for a while. Perhaps I should as well. It is apparent I am no longer contributing as I should. Plus, I still feel Richie got a raw deal. I've sene much worse go on here but when a conservative is censured and thye are not, then I honestly wonder if justice is trul blind. Fair is fair, private enterprise or not.
In a tribute to MT, our resident Canadian mountie, I say "Wlibamkanni." Keep up the fight, Sirs. Viva la, er, USA!
-
Holy shit, Professor, Richie didn't get as raw a deal as Henny would have had if details of her personal life which she did not want exposed had continued to soldier on in the form of Richie's posts. I can see where nobody is going to be completely happy no matter how this matter had been resolved, but Rich took a small hit in order to save Henny from a much bigger one. All things considered this was about the fairest resolution possible.
Sorry to see you go, but I understand the need for a break. I feel like it myself off and on and I'm really putting in way too much time here, considering my other duties. I hope to see you around again, in the not so distant future. All the best.
Michael
-
I'll do my best Professor. Don't stay away too long. Yours (and Prince's) reasons for not supporting the war are truely worth noting, especially by those inflicted with BDS, and a big reason why we can get such good, hearty, substantive debate, here in the saloon. 8)
-
I should have expected this response. I hoped not, but received it anyway.
I see Richie has bowed out for a while. Perhaps I should as well. It is apparent I am no longer contributing as I should. Plus, I still feel Richie got a raw deal. I've sene much worse go on here but when a conservative is censured and thye are not, then I honestly wonder if justice is trul blind. Fair is fair, private enterprise or not.
In a tribute to MT, our resident Canadian mountie, I say "Wlibamkanni." Keep up the fight, Sirs. Viva la, er, USA!
How do you get this from what I posted?
-
I've sene much worse go on here but when a conservative is censured and thye are not, then I honestly wonder if justice is trul blind. Fair is fair, private enterprise or not.
You know, there is a big difference between the leadership of this group simply censoring for the hell of it, and doing it because I asked them to. This conservative/liberal line is a load of crap and you know it. If you had asked JS or even BT to do the same for you and for the same reasons, I am quite sure they have respected your wishes.
More to the point, I started this group in Yahoo years and years ago as a staunch conservative (which I am sure is part of the reason that Rich reacted so violently to the "now" Henny vs. the Henny of days gone by who was more in sync with his outlook on the world). When I posted as a conservative I was treated the same as I am now, years later, as a more leftist contributor. There was no favoritism then, and there is none now.
Last, I have been a member of this group for ages (minus some long breaks without participation) and certainly long enough to know what the leadership of this group is made up of. BT is fair beyond fair and looks at everything and everyone with an open mind that you don't see in many people these days. JS, Chicky, Victor and Plane are the same.
-
I've sene much worse go on here but when a conservative is censured and thye are not, then I honestly wonder if justice is trul blind. Fair is fair, private enterprise or not.
Last, I have been a member of this group for ages (minus some long breaks without participation) and certainly long enough to know what the leadership of this group is made up of. BT is fair beyond fair and looks at everything and everyone with an open mind that you don't see in many people these days. JS, Chicky, Victor and Plane are the same.
I have the utmost respect for BT and JS. I just feel they missed the ball on this one.
"A card laid is a card played," ala Kenny Rogers in the Gambler. You got what you asked for with some collateral damage along the way.
Time for you to to move on, little doggie, as they say in the Westerns (American, that is). Other topics...other discussions.
-
I have the utmost respect for BT and JS. I just feel they missed the ball on this one.
"A card laid is a card played," ala Kenny Rogers in the Gambler. You got what you asked for with some collateral damage along the way.
Time for you to to move on, little doggie, as they say in the Westerns (American, that is). Other topics...other discussions.
When Knutty dug up some personal photos of me and posted them here, I went in the other direction and posted more just to show her that I had no problem with her violating my privacy. BT even asked if the posts should be removed and I said no.
However, Henny made a different decision, and one that was hers to make.
If someone digs up personal information about you and posts that information here, you will have a choice to make as well.
Regardless, it's not censorship.
-
When Knutty dug up some personal photos of me and posted them here, I went in the other direction and posted more just to show her that I had no problem with her violating my privacy. BT even asked if the posts should be removed and I said no.
Knute is a she?
I never would have guessed that.
-
Knute is a she?
I never would have guessed that.
Probably not, but that seems to tweak her when I do it.
-
From the terrorist's mouth
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed speaks candidly, and even regretfully, about masterminding 9/11, reminding us of the horrors of that day.
March 16, 2007
IT'S NOT NEWS THAT Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks or that he was involved in other terrorist conspiracies. It was precisely because of his central role in Al Qaeda that he was hunted down and captured in Pakistan four years ago and subjected to harsh interrogation.
Still, Mohammed's admission before a military tribunal in Guantanamo last weekend that "I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z," was chilling, both for what he said and for the way his confession brings the gruesome reality of 9/11 back to the fore of Americans' consciousness.
It isn't just the passage of time that has distanced Americans from the horror of that day. That 5 1/2 years have passed without a similar attack on U.S. soil has made it easier for us to think of 9/11 as an aberration. There is also something about the scale of that day's horror that makes it hard to continue viewing it as the handiwork of a few determined terrorists rather than as some larger, preordained apocalypse.
Mohammed's admissions about 9/11 and his insistence that "I'm not happy that 3,000 been killed in America" only underline the obscenity of that act. And in itemizing unconsummated conspiracies, including assassination plots against former U.S. presidents and a pope, Mohammed reminds us that the future holds dangers from those who share his faith-based hatred of the U.S. and the West. Even if the man was exaggerating a bit in detailing the projects that had been on his terrorist to-do list, the world is undoubtedly a safer place for having this monster in captivity.
Mohammed's rationalizations for his actions, it goes without saying, are appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George Washington against the British. Similarly bogus apologies have been offered by, and on behalf of, terrorists from Belfast to Beirut. Those who make such arguments believe them, and it's distressing that plenty of people in the Mideast will accept Mohammed's reasoning.
Whether you call it militant Islam, Islamic fascism or a clash of civilizations, there is a movement that has declared war on the U.S. and the West. It is neither a figment of President Bush's imagination nor a byproduct of the Iraq war. Americans disagree about how to engage that enemy, but its existence is undeniable. So is the willingness of its adherents to kill ? and die ? for the cause. The passage of time since 9/11 may have dulled our appreciation of that reality, especially as partisan bickering consumes Washington. By confessing ? and boasting about ? his crimes, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed has sharpened it.
Article (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-ksm16mar16,0,62374.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials)
-
<<Mohammed's rationalizations for his actions, it goes without saying, are appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George Washington against the British. >>
Appalling. Unlike the American rationalizations for the infinitely greater death toll of the Iraq war. THOSE innocents (oooops!! of course I meant "collateral damage") died for the sake of "democracy" in Iraq.
-
<<Mohammed's rationalizations for his actions, it goes without saying, are appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George Washington against the British. >>
Appalling. Unlike the American rationalizations for the infinitely greater death toll of the Iraq war. THOSE innocents died for the sake of "democracy" in Iraq.
And how many Americans again died for "democracy" in America? My guess it included alot of "innocents". In fact, last time I checked, it was only a minority that wanted Independence from the Brits. No wonder you hate America so much, according to you, we should still be ruled by the English Monarchy
-
<<Mohammed's rationalizations for his actions, it goes without saying, are appalling. He compares the mass murder of innocents at the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to the War of Independence waged by George Washington against the British. >>
Appalling. Unlike the American rationalizations for the infinitely greater death toll of the Iraq war. THOSE innocents (oooops!! of course I meant "collateral damage") died for the sake of "democracy" in Iraq.
Slay the combatant enemy by whatever means is necessary. Protect the innocent. Any other interpretation is garbage, regardless of what side you are on. Killing innocents is the act of a weak man. Weak in spirit. Weak in mojo. I spit on them and welcome them to fight man to man. Pu---ies.
I never killed an innocent in my life. I killed many who deserved it and many who perhaps didn't as they were just doing what they were told. Too bad about the latter, but God'll sort it out in His time.
Any real man of character protects the innocent. Even cares for your enemy's women and children.
-
I seem to be very badly misunderstood. I am as realistic as the next guy concerning a reasonable amount of civilian casualties in any war. The critiques of my posts seem to start from the point that I am an unrealistic schmuck because I don't appreciate that any war has a civilian casualty toll, but in fact I appreciate that point very well.
My post was in response to the article posted by sirs in which an Islamic "terrorist" was lambasted for his unrepentant attitude, his lack of concern over the death toll in the WTC/Pentagon attacks. My point was the utter fucking hypocrisy of the post, since the Americans are as quick as their "terrorist" enemies to justify civilian death tolls (much higher on the Arabic-speaking side, BTW) by the great cause for which they were "sacrificed," national liberation on the "terrorist" side, "democracy" on the American.
<<And how many Americans again died for "democracy" in America? My guess it included alot of "innocents". >>
Well, given that "innocents" die in any war, it probably included "some" innocents. How many would make up "a lot" is a highly subjective matter. However, I think in modern warfare, due to aerial bombardment, you will tend to have a much larger number of civilian victims dying in war than you had in the 18th Century. The civilian death toll in the 18th century's wars must have been relatively low.
<<In fact, last time I checked, it was only a minority that wanted Independence from the Brits. No wonder you hate America so much, according to you, we should still be ruled by the English Monarchy>>
The conventional apportionment we were taught was one-third rebel, one-third loyalist and one-third neutral or undecided. I don't give a shit that you escaped monarchical rule. Frankly, I believe you got yourselves a much better system than we did and a lot earlier on. And I also believe that you reaped the rewards of your adventurism, some of them good, some of them not so good. Canada proceeded on a slow, steady, unimaginative course of non-rebellion and obedience, and in the end we built ourselves a much superior society to yours, more equitable, more peaceful and more respected.
-
My apologies, then, if I misunderstood you, Michael Tee.
-
No apology necessary, Mr. P. I was not offended, but I felt I owed you the correction.
-
<<And how many Americans again died for "democracy" in America? My guess it included alot of "innocents". >>
Well, given that "innocents" die in any war, it probably included "some" innocents. How many would make up "a lot" is a highly subjective matter. However, I think in modern warfare, due to aerial bombardment, you will tend to have a much larger number of civilian victims dying in war than you had in the 18th Century. The civilian death toll in the 18th century's wars must have been relatively low.
All the while avoiding answering the question. Excellent Yet, that's all you're doing here, claiming all these "innocents" lost fighting for "democracy". Obviously in a pathetically sarcastic tone, since in your mind those actually trying to win their democracy are by their very act collaborators in your book. And "even if" (using your tried and untrue technique) Iraqis wanted democracy & freedom, American forces have no intention of helping to bring about such....last thing on their list of things to do, right?
<<In fact, last time I checked, it was only a minority that wanted Independence from the Brits. No wonder you hate America so much, according to you, we should still be ruled by the English Monarchy>>
The conventional apportionment we were taught was one-third rebel, one-third loyalist and one-third neutral or undecided. I don't give a shit that you escaped monarchical rule. Frankly, I believe you got yourselves a much better system than we did and a lot earlier on. And I also believe that you reaped the rewards of your adventurism, some of them good, some of them not so good. Canada proceeded on a slow, steady, unimaginative course of non-rebellion and obedience, and in the end we built ourselves a much superior society to yours, more equitable, more peaceful and more respected.
All the while again avoiding the point, that Americans did fight for their Independence, did fight to rid themselves of a ruling monarchy, and did so with the help of the French, who without such we may still be part of the English empire. So goes Iraq, fighting for its fledgling freedom & democracy, people risking everything to bring that taste of freedom to their country. Risks you apparently spit on, because America is helping to bring it about, and since it's America, it can't be a good thing.....it just can't. >:(