posted May 14, 2004 03:07 AM              

I'm not even American, and I can see that. My government didn't even wish to assist, but I was all the way in right from the start.

Bottem line. These groups are raised, bred, trained, fed on abject HATE for Western civilization. They are not happy to live and let live. No siree, what they're after is nothing less than "WE live to KILL ALL OTHERS who are not like us." It's racism prejudism, flat out hate of 1/3 of the worlds' population. It's not just about the US. It's about any country that resembles them in culture as well. They want nothing less than genocide. We know all about that already, now don't we? We've already come to the conclusion that it's profoundly wrong. So, why are we so sympathic to a group of bloodthirsty barbarics who are after our own heads? That's insane!

posted May 14, 2004 08:12 AM              

quote:

---

I'm sorry if you took offense raine. I didn't mean to insult our animal cousins.

---

apology accepted, tink--on behalf of our muted animal friends i think linda is smiling. now if we can just bring our fellow humans up to the level of animals, the planet might have a chance, eh?

but i'm afraid violence has permeated the history of all cultures, including our own--how quickly we forget the grim reminder that it was the infamous "white man" who began the not-very-nice practice of scalping our indian brothers. after all, it was a logical way to keep track of the numbers, for bounty purposes, without the impractical necessity of bringing in the entire corpses

and alas, violence still permeates our language:

quote:

---

The terrorists are worse than animals.

---

from my animal-rights activist friend:

quote:

---

Yes, it's one of our pet grievances. They (the unenlightened) use this language all the time. "We were treated like animals" as if animals deserve to be abused...I'm afraid that while human bipeds continue to murder and eat animals, they will continue to use this language.

Even 'to kill two birds with one stone' etc. Of course, women used to receive this verbal treatment ' acting like a woman' as an insulting term. Women were able to fight for their rights; but we have to do so for those who have no voice - and lots of people are doing it, but the darkness is deep.

---

posted May 14, 2004 08:35 AM              

Jwhop, either your reading comprehension skills are not what they should be or you purposely misquote people in an attempt to make them look silly. Obviously, I don't think these terrorists are brave. Why say that? Either that or you're not fully reading everyone's posts. Which is fine. By all means read selectivly. I do. But don't answer a post you have not fully read.

Isis, I sympathize with anyone who has seen that video. But in all honesty, our special forces often wear masks too.

Lioneye, I agree with you 100% that this hate the West mentality is inbred. Is there a better answer than killing them? Can they be reeducated? No, I don't mean the men in the video. I mean the average guy in the street.

I guess what I'm wondering is - if we are fighting an enemy who uses medieval tactics (like beheading for effect) should we fight back with the same? Does that drag us all back to the dark ages? I'm slighty confused when I read that we should "fight with the gloves off". They are already fighting like this and we are expressing outrage at their behaivor. We once fought like this too. Remember? Ironically, back then the much more civilized Arabs and Persians were horrified by our barbarism. Strange how things work out.

posted May 14, 2004 10:10 AM              

Pid - Then why do people keep pointing to the salvation of the Iraqi people as "the reason" for the invasion?
It seems like backpeddling to me.
Re: the UN Sanctions: I know that those have been discussed, but I also see that they are seldom referred to...people much prefer to point to more heart-rending reasons. Also re: them: Yes, they were binding (passed by the SC) as opposed to, say, all of the non-binding resolutions (passed by the GA) passed against Israel...funny how the politics of the situations work to make Iraq culpable for its actions and another place with extensive US ties not.

posted May 14, 2004 12:44 PM            

Can anyone confirm what the deal is on that?

Special forces wearing head coverings while on a covert mission, and cowards killing someone on camera to appear bold and brave yet cover their faces, IMO, is not the same thing. But someone will always try to come up with a way to equate us to scum of the earth, somehow someway.

Tink, I mistook your words of "they fight the old fashioned way and we don't have it in us to do the same" (paraphrased) as Jwhop did, to mean that they're somehow brave, in contrast to us. Thanks for clarifying that.

But I still get from many of you that you equate them to us, and I there's this real feeling of loathing for the US. Why? I don't understand, what did America do or not do for you? Cause there is this apparent self-loathing on the left, a loathing of America, and a self-loathing that one is an American. I don't understand it.

posted May 14, 2004 01:07 PM              

I could be wrong, but it was my understanding that settlers started it by putting a bounty on American Indians killed, to be proven by scalps brought back.
They just took what was done to them and ran w/ it.

Like I said, though, I could be wrong.

posted May 14, 2004 01:16 PM            

I am not totally sure what you mean. For me, I was always under the impression that the WMD reason was just a small part. The real reason was to irradicate Saddam and to help liberate the people. The big picture seems to be that once we liberate the people, topple the dictator, flush out the terrorists - then everything else will also come to light such as: the WMD's.

Look at how far we have gotten - the exposure of the crooked Oil for Food program, the ties to Al Queda have been brought to light, Saddam's astrocities and those of his sons have been exposed.

There is still so much we cannot see and maybe so much people are not willing to want to see, but the truth is, WMD was a small but vital part.

In my mind I see it as 'The total justification is not at issue, what is at issue is what we have accomplished for the people".

We have so many apathetic people in the world these days, even the US is breeding more and more people that do not care about their fellow man, so it stands to reason NOT promoting the liberation of the people was the way to go. Look at people here who throw out "Why liberate them anyway..they didn't ask"

All I know is that when I was in Nashville, and the President was speaking about the war on the radio while I was in a tax, the Iraqi taxi driver was very passionate about going to war. He still had family and said that he loved what the US was about to do because he had escaped Saddam's brutality and worried about those he loved that had to stay back.

Well, that was just ONE person, but it still hit home with me - that we can't stand by and allow this to happen to a group of people. We all talk about how much we love the environment - well, guess what folks, ever try to remove radioactive waste from water? All it takes is big dose of Sarin or a spliced strain of the common cold with the virulence of Ebola to ruin a country.

I don't want my children growing up worrying that some strange person in a far away land is plotting to kill the people they love. What is worse is explaining to the youth that "No matter what you do or don't do, they HATE you because you are not one of them".

posted May 14, 2004 01:40 PM              

(I'm not saying that in a belittling way - it's hard to tell on these boards; I've actually heard the same theory put forth by a number of Middle East and Islamic scholars.)

posted May 14, 2004 01:41 PM            

quote:

---

So, in your mind, it's mainly a by-product of a once mighty, heck, dominant civilization feeling insecure and inadequate around a West that has been surging for the past few hundred years?

---

Yes.

posted May 14, 2004 01:48 PM              

A lack of ability to emulate (b/c of a lack of intellectual and/or physical resources)?
A "drawing back in" towards "traditional" values so that they're not lost spun out of control?
Both?
A critique of Western/American policies and practices?
All of the above?
(ie. "We *can't* become like them b/c we don't have their glut of resources so, given that, we're going to turn back to our old ways (since their "new ways" are so obviously corrupt and harmful as we couldn't successfully adopt them) - oh, and scholars - why we're at it, could you please tell us just why and how they're corrupt and harmful?")
Something else?
(A genuine recoiling from the materialism of the mass American culture or the like?)

posted May 14, 2004 02:10 PM            

Frankly, we see it here in the US between varying Christian churches not tolerating alternative religions, we see it with the Jewish religion believing they are the only chosen ones, and then we have the Islamic peeps feeling the same way.

That is where I have problems with religion. Personally, I believe me being a Christians means I am to be tolerant of my fellow man and although I do not have to subscribe to his / her beliefs, I should kill to prevent them.

Why do the Jews and the Palestinians hate each other? It goes deeper than land issues. Why did the Bosnians and Serbians fight over Christianity and Islam? Why is there a caste system in India.

Money, ideology, territory..all common themes. Why do they hate us? I don't know the answer to that question. I don't think they have an answer. I do firmly believe that people, some people, NEED a cause to feel validated. So some of them FEEL they are doing to will of some entity.

Proxie,

posted May 14, 2004 02:14 PM            

"For this day's work, lords, you have encouraged treason and opened the prison doors to free the traitors. A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their garments, and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the carrier of the plague. You have unbarred the gates of Rome to him."
Cicero, address to the Roman Senate

posted May 14, 2004 02:28 PM              

Although I think you're very brave to have done so, you shouldn't have watched that video. It's made you want blood, like the whacked out zealots.

I've seen enough gore in movies, that I think I can suffiently imagine what it would look like. I couldn't bare to watch it, though. I think it would poisen me. That stuff is contagious, it's a sickness of the soul.