<p>one more thing mekrob, I already said it before, since Iran is linked to the many terror org. world wide, I believe those org. would feel much greater "freedom of operation" once they know Iran is got their beck.</p>
<p>By reading many of these posts, I've concluded that those denouncing Islam and its teachings aren't familiar with any of its holy doctrines and principles.</p>
<p>Main emphasis - PEACE...Islam stresses peace with members of all faiths, unless they are inhibiting the practice of Islam. When someone is out there trying to eliminate the religion, Muslims are required to fight for its existence. Now as I see it, the U.S. is not inhibiting the practice of the religion itself, and terrorists are using creed as justification for their actions....through such attacks, terrorist leaders gain power, land, $$$, AND.....MORE JUSTIFICATION....it's entirely a political game rather than a religous game....an attack leads to the West's use of force on so called "breeding grounds for terrorists." By advertising attacks made by the U.S. on such countries, terrorists can easily convince Muslims to believe that practice of their religion is being inhibited by the U.S. These terrorists use a kind of "brain washing" technique....they teach their kids and the people around them that the U.S. is attempting to eliminate Islam...they don't advertise how the U.S. is actually helping anyone else...how we helped the Albanians in Yugoslavia, how we supply medical and financial aid to several primarily Muslim countries. It's similar to much Civil War propaganda....."the South is trying to destroy the Union and dismantle what our Founding Fathers worked so hard to construct," "The North is violating the right invested to the States in the Constitution, and the Constitution states that when a Government becomes unjust, that the ppl must band together to overthrow it." Also...WWII propaganda against Japanese Americans....this technique is not unknown to the world...infact we've used it ourselves. Groups will use political(Constitution), moral(religion), and social(Norms) doctrines as justification for how they act and what they believe.</p>
<p>Furthermore....many of you refuse to acknowledge the use of violence force by the U.S. and many of its European counterparts in the past to impose "Westernism." Prime examples = the colonization of Africa, the extermination of Native Americans, and the justification for the Spanish-American/Mexican Wars. As many of you know...such tactics of violent imposition are used in the early stages of political development....and like i said....terrorism is primarily a political game....they're attempting to impose a political philosophy or working towards a political goal (i.e. the liberation of Palestine), and they are willing to use violence to achieve it. The West hoped to achieve global dominance through violent colonization....extremists are working towards a political goal by attacking barriers....in each case....deep set beliefs and philosophies are used as justification.</p>
<p>Saddam's wars against Iran, Kuwait, and America with her allies crippled Iraq into a wasteland. It's army wasn't capable of anything and the war with Iran only strengthened Iranian determination to survive. Saddam could not go to war with Iran again or else he may have been removed from power after defeat or an uprising from the severe casualties. With Saddam by their doorstep, they were only more able to build nuclear weapons. Now the Iranians will have to divert funds from the advanced weapons facilities to the military to prepare to stop an invasion on two fronts by America thus slowing down their process of building nuclear weapons. Besides, Saddam was the neighbor of a bitter enemy for fifteen years after a brutal war. He faced danger as well from nuclear weapons but did not act. After 15 years of doing nothing to counter Iranian nuclear buildup, how could you assume that he would have done anything in the future had he been left in power? </p>
<p>As for the second message, that just doesn't make much sense. There is no reason to say that the org's <em>would</em> feel freer to operate (i.e. carry out attacks) if Iran were to have their backs. They have had the org's backs for 25 years, so there is no hypothetical state here. It is the case. I think that your English messed up what you were trying to say. Care to rephrase? Thanks</p>
<p>Actually, you understood my msg exactly as I ment it to be understood: It's known that Iran is funding terrorists groups, read that last article published about the effect of Iran's growing power over those terrorists groups - it's written by Henry Kissinger (probably didn't spell the name right). I still believe that once terror org's around the world would feel like the west "cant stop Iran" they would feel more powerful - they got themselves an Islamic nation which "beat the west". From their prespective the west has been beaten beacuse the US obviously opposes the idea of Iran reaching nuclear abilities yet Iran overcame the US and its allies and achieved those abilities. so in conclusion, even though Iran has "had their becks" for a very long time, once Iran would posses nuclear abilities this "beckup" be upgraded dramatically, consequently affecting the terror org's.</p>
<p>Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. Thanks. Have you found those links about al-Qaeda yet?</p>
<p>Henry Kissenger leans heavily towards Zionism, so naturally he'd attempt to demean ANY Islamic Nation.....he's also been accused of being involeved in mass murder in Cambodia along with other war crimes :)</p>
<p>nahrafsafa, I'm sorry i just can't understand your opinion about this.
I don't think you can compare the impose of "westernism" terrorism, if you want i can elborate on that but i think it's pretty obvious. and about kissneger, so what are you saying? should the world let Iran have nuclear abilities? don't you find Iran a very dangerous country to world peace? (when i say country i obviously mean the goverment).</p>