<p>o.k:
sandy-owl: (hello, my next reply is for you, I perfer to write 2 replys and not a very long one)</p>
<p>you said something I totally disagree with. you said "people aren't born terrorists, they respond to the circumstnces" - I believe that terrorism has evolved in Islam society in particular because it's more religious than other societies and people are subjected to methodic anti-west preeching since early age. history can proove that nither poverty or occupation have never generated terrorism - that is a fact one can't argue with. Those extreme Imams preeching against anything modern, or anything "not islamic" are the cause of terrorism, those should be stopped first 'cause once one has been preached to at early age it's very hard to change his mind. I am glad you agree that muslims should denounce it, obviously I am not reffering to the average muslim on the street, When I said Muslim society should denounce terrorism I ment that all arab/muslim goverments who agree with that principle should object to terrorism against civilians wherever / whenever - the problem is that most will only denounce it when it's comfortable politically (when it's against america or the UK), by that they "legalize" it instead of doing vice versa - which brings me to ask you: I didn't exactly what was your claim / opinion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, its link to the global terrorism and US foriegn policy - please explain it to me again :-)</p>
<ul>
<li>one more thing, the reason I object the claim that "people aren't born terrorist, they react to the circumstances" is that it gives a rational reason for terrorism where in fact there is no rationality in it. fighting against the US or every other nation is fine, but this isn't an honerble way of fighting / resisting.</li>
</ul>
<p>btw, thanks for being a cool talk partner...</p>
<p>Dan, another mistake that you make is grouping all of these organizations together as though they were a single entity. There are many of these organizations and they all have different goals. Some desire to impose Islam upon the whole world such as a few (at least) in the Iranian gov't and ruling clergy. Others have other goals. I'm sure you know more about Hamas and other Palestinian groups, but I was under the assumption they only wanted to rid Israelis (not all Jews) from the area. I don't have time to do research right nowt though. I have work.</p>
<p>As for North Korea, they have a large and strong enough military and conventional weapons to cause 100,000 casualties within the opening hours of any military offensive by the South or America, making any invasion almost impossible to come out of a "winner". Even if/when their military would be defeated, tens of thousands of Americans (even more casualties on the South's side) would be killed and even more would be injured. Bush could not invade North Korea because of the serious political implications that would occur, and the North knows this. So why need nukes then?</p>
<p>"one more thing, the reason I object the claim that "people aren't born terrorist, they react to the circumstances" is that it gives a rational reason for terrorism where in fact there is no rationality in it."</p>
<p>I think I said that "it doesn't justify the acts" in my previous post. But, I stand firm in saying that people aren't born terrorists. No kid is ever born and his/her parents are like I wish that he would become a suicide bomber. When I said circumstances, I meant political circumstances...not poverty or occupation (of course that provides no rational for such acts either). Why did the word "Islamic extremism" not exist in the way it does today a couple of hundred years ago? What you are arguing against is undeniable....the Western foreign policy has had a lot to do with what exists today. Plus, I severly disagree with what people say about Imams and madrasas. They are a very few places that teach such things. I have been to a madrasa. You know what it is? Where people come to learn to read Quran and such...I have heard zillions of Imam and none has ever preached violence. If there are any such Imams, they are very few and are not considered real Imams by most Muslims.
When you ask about the PAl-Isr link, I don't think I need to explain much. The USA has adopted a partisan approach to that issue until just recently. That has been a great reason for Osama and the like to do what they want to do. I am not saying that we should try to appease them but rather try to appease the general Muslim world which can only be done with policy changes. It is almost impossible to root out individuals who start violence. It should be a general trend of justice and fairness. Muslims need to see that from the West and they have to see that the West does not want to occupy them (which is a shady issue anyway). If that trust is established, I believe that terrorism will be mellowed.</p>
<p>Hello:
1. I didn't say "they should have invated Iran" period. I said that in my opinion Iraq was wrong and Iran would have been a smarter target. I didn't write they should invate, I just claim that in stratigic wise, Iran is a better target.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I don't see the link between the fact that the US had helped Al-Qaeda in the past and this discussion about terrorism. It's just like Israel had helped HizbAllah in Lebanon and we all know how that turned out. </p></li>
<li><p>Countries like Iran shouldn't posses nuclear abilities. the reason is that this coutry is run by religious fanatics who speaks clearly, without any "political correctness" about "destroying the zionist state" (that is formal Iranian foriegn policy). I just think that countries which preech to hate shouldn't posses such power. Israel is their hate target now, assume they destroyed Israel. Do you really think they would stop there? besiedes, It's known that Iran sponsers terrorism, with a nuclear power org. like HizbAllah could "party" knowing Iran got their beck.</p></li>
<li><p>Nuclear power is just like you said it is, ment to deter. The problem is that which such countries like Iran which is obviously ruled by extremeist, this "deter" could turn soon into threat,say, Iran announces that the new Shihab-X missle can hit Paris. now Iran asks France to cancel the law forbids public display of religious symbols in state facilities (the one which prevents muslim females from wearing the triditional "head cover"). knowing France we all know how that will turn out... what's next? threatning the EU to take a total Anti-Israeli approach (as if they are really pro-Israeli.. but oh well) and if not... BOOM... see, it's not what you do with the bomb, it's what you could do with it...</p></li>
</ol>
<p>btw, Israel was saved in 73' only beacuse it has neuclear threat, so such power can impact foriegn policy of even the US.</p>
<p>once again, thanks for being a fun talk partner.</p>
<p>Sandy-Owl:
you did say that "it doesn't justify their acts", yet I believe that methodic preeching leads to suicide bombers and not just "political circumstances".
you wrote: "No kid is ever born and his/her parents are like I wish that he would become a suicide bomber" - well, All I can say for that is watch the news when Al-Gazira is interviewing yet another suicide bomber's mom when she "prays allah for giving her a son who became a Shahid", that's my point. that too many in the muslim world are brain washed with this non sence. I didn't say that All Imams are like that, I never mentioned Madrasas. I did however write "extreme Imams" - I only refer to those extreme, but with 1.5Billion muslims in the world, you don't need a large % of muslims who follow an extreme Imam to have a very large number of people who will fight "holy war - Jihad", btw, just a few days ago this org. in Iran declared it has 40k suicide bombers "ready to be lunched", off the record the said they have ties with the goverment. </p>
<p>Osama bin Laden might hate the Idea of the having Israel, yet Al-Qaeda's basic principles don't soly focus on the ISR-PAL conflict, it goes much dipper to the controdiction between liberal modern society (represented obviously by the US) and "old fasion" Islam (extreme, tired of using that word). Even if the PAL-ISR conflict would have been solved, they still would try to hert the US for controdicting Islam principles. so for that matter one shouldn't link global terror with ISR-PAL conflict. more than that, many PAL leaders said (off the record mostly) that groups like HizbAllash aren't helping the palestinian goal of having a state, they are just using the conflict to have an excuse for their own existance.</p>
No one thought the US would invade Iraq, did anyone? My whole point is that after the Iraq invasion there is now more uncertainty regarding the US foriegn policy and whom/when they might attack next. And with the huge US military presence in the Korean area, who knows......</p>
<p>As I said Hello, I don't think Bush is that stupid. He realizes that If invating then Iran should be the target and not Korea. honestly I believe that if the US and EU will unite against those two they can make defeat them without a single shot being fired. damn with this gap between the US and EU.</p>
<p>To Dan:
Well Al Qaeda is one of the leading terrorist organizations, and you stated something about Islam leading to/creating terrorism. SO the link here is that the United States played a major role in promoting the terrorism that is prevalent in our world today.</p>
<p>Again, No country will ever use Nukes in an offensive. Coz if they do they know the whole world will retaliate and eliminate them.</p>
<p>
[quote]
As I said Hello, I don't think Bush is that stupid
[/quote]
HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
IRAQ - IRAQ - IRAQ!!!</p>
<p>And the best part is that I dont understand how the hell did he get re-elected? Clearly its the oil - not a single WMA was found, and still...</p>
<p>I wonder how accurate the intelligence is on Iran.</p>
<p>Some of the reasons why killer scum resort to terror are listed as follows:</p>
<p>1) They <em>hate</em> us. </p>
<p>2) They <em>hate</em> our civilisation. </p>
<p>3) They <em>hate</em> Jews. </p>
<p>4) They <em>hate</em> Israel. </p>
<p>5) They <em>hate</em> anyone who supports Israel.</p>
<p>6) They are indoctrinated from childhood to be fanatics with regard to all of the above.</p>
<p>7) They are continuously encouraged to be killer scum by religious fanatics who teach that they will enter paradise by murdering Jews and Westerners.</p>
<p>8) They believe that their family will also get a ticket to paradise by their being killer scum.</p>
<p>Under these circumstances, who wouldn't be a terrorist? These are the REAL reasons why people resort to terror.</p>
<p>why they hate the americans?
why they hate jews?
why they hate israel?
why would a person be willing to blow himself up?</p>
<p>the situation in the west bank and gaza speaks for itself. suicide bombings started considerably recently compared to the history of isr-pal and their war. it started only when the people had no other choice left to defend themselves. kiling children in tehir homes, bulldozing houses, displacing thousands of people. israel army dictates everything over there. curfews, strip-searching, innocent people abducted from their homes. so after living for so many years under these conditions they had to do something. </p>
<p>its easy to sit and criticize. just imagine yourlsef to go through strip-search everytime you goto work, or random fires killing your loved ones, or someone coming up and bulldozed your house. how would you react? they hate americans also for it, cos americans are supporting the israel all the way in these crimes against humanity.</p>
<p>DanC, I'm just wondering where you got your information on al-Qaeda's principles. All that I have read from bin Laden seems to say the opposite. From his '98 fatwa and several interviews and released statements, he stated that he was not against the American people and society, but instead only against the government. He even said that if the rulers of Arabia were to be taken out of power and he were in command that he would still resume commerce with the West and the US and still sell oil. That doesn't seem like he hates our society.
I do realize though they organizations, like people, change, and I'm not an expert on al-Qaeda/bin Laden. I was just wondering where you read that they had different views on Western society.</p>
<p>Wasay:
I'm sorry to say that but you clearly don't know anything about the ISR-PAL conflict and its history. Here is something new: suicide bombers started attacking Israel as soon as 1949, then Israel never controled the Gaza strip. In addition, as I said before, even if one lives in poor condition it's not an excuse / not enough on its own to make him commit this act - he neads to be lead to it through brain washing. The claim that PAL commit suicide bombings because "they have no other choice to defend themselves" - as a member of the most abused mainoroty in the history of man, read about some jewish ways of resistence during its history, it never almost never involved innocents and if so wasn't intentioned to that.
and wasay, now that you know that suicide bombings and terrorism started before 67' (read about the "FADAYOONS" if you like)</p>
<p>ever wondred,
why do the Israreli army streap search the homes?
why do the Israeli army holds curfews?
etc...</p>
<p>it was clearly shown during Arafat's regime that every time that a city or town was given to a palestinian contol a suicide bomber would be imerging from that place and blow himself up in a cafe or buss. but the ISR-PAL conflict for itself isn't point. the point is that througout the world muslim society is the one which produces (again, extreme sides of it, but non the less they are muslim) terrorism. and my opinion muslim society should resist terrorism wherever / whenever, and not only where it find it useful, as in the UK or US. I'm sorry to say but people like you who find excuses to terrorism are the ones who make this act appear "normal" for those who commit it and for others in the muslim community. I really think you should think about you said - is there any excuse for that? I will admit to stuff if I'm wrong, I already changed things I wrote during this convo, I truely believe you are wrong on this one.</p>
<p>I think we better stick to the global terrorism subject, PAL org. doesn't have much in common with those other org. other than the fact that them both commit crimes against humanity. PAL org simply act against Israel which occupies PAL land, Al-Qaeda and others which act world-wide are acting against the "west and moren civilazation".</p>
<p>Mekrob,
I didn't group them together, and if it appeard that way then it was wrong. my point was as written in the reply above, the PAL org have a very specific goal (getting Israel either out of whole land or part of it), Al-Qaeda, as far as I know (I'll find a link soon) has its goal on all the "siners" - the west and modern society whose value controdict with radical Islam.</p>
<p>edit: I could find 2 links which state the "duty" of muslim around the world to engage holy war ("Jihad") against americna civilians and goverment (and other groups like jews, Israel etc). I cam send it to you, they are reliable and not from an Israeli / Arab source. the fact is that this org. is clearly calling upon killing civilians.</p>
<p>hello,
by saying bush "ain't that stupid" I ment he ain't that stupid to invade the wrong country twice :-), obviously Iraq prooved him to be not very wise...</p>
<p>
[quote]
1. I didn't say "they should have invated Iran" period. I said that in my opinion Iraq was wrong and Iran would have been a smarter target. I didn't write they should invate, I just claim that in stratigic wise, Iran is a better target.
[/quote]
Another point, the invasion of Iraq was "to free the people of Iraq", not to get a stronghold in the Middle East. Clearly its pressure tactics either to change the mid-east countries governments or for the oil.</p>
<p>What do you mean by 'strategic wise', 'Better target'? Again let me remind you, this is war. 100,000 civilian casualties in Iraq and counting, you can't go invading countries based on hunches or due to strategical reasons.</p>
<p>I'll tell you what I mean by "stratigic wise":
to me the goal of America and the western world should be to eliminate threats to modern society - Iran is, and was, a much greater threat than Iraq. Now the worlds strongest army is busy with a Iraq while the greatest threat is coming from Iran. that is, to me, wrong stratigically. more than that, if iraq would still be under saddam's regime I'm sure it would be harder for Iran to develop nuclear weapon, so here is another "stratigic mistake" by Bush.</p>
<p>So are you saying that Iran is more scared of Saddam because he may have had WMD's than of the strongest army the world pointing to it from across the mountains? I'd be much more scared I were a mullah in Iran right now than 3 years ago. BTW, North Korea is just a little bit scarier than Iran right now. The North has already claimed to produce nuclear weapons, while Iran is still in the process and could take a few more years to produce even a single one.</p>
<p>I am saying that while the strongest army in the world is busy with iraq, iran has its peace of mind to create and develop long range missiles and atomic weapon. If saddam was in power I believe he would try to weaken Iran, we all know about the relations between Iran in Iraq - and if the US army hadn't been in Iraq it could have "helped" saddam to reduce Iran's pace of getting nuclear arms. Iraq was a stablizing factor in the region, together with afganistan, now iraq and afganistan are gone, so that leaves Iran as a region empire - and that is wrong stratigically. I believe korea is less dangerous since they are more open for negotiation.</p>