Did Iran become a player in space ?

Gregori · 2008-05-12 06:36:49

How do you think the local mosque will react if I build a tower over it as a Church?
NASAs return to the moon will definately piss them off then. No doubt at least one, probably more of the astronauts on the surface will be Christian. Unless there's a Moslem on board as well.

No it won't.

Look at what's happening in Dubai, A 1km building. Plus they operate airports and airlines in that region taking plenty of non-muslims wll above the height of any muslim building. They're very pragmatic people...

I'd rather see the Middle Eastern countries co-operating with the West in space exploration. Saudi Arabia Irrigated large part of the desert with their oil wealth. I think that could be valuable experience in any 'terraforming' attempts!

Stormrage · 2008-05-12 14:00:50

If you live in the USA they'll probably accept it. Muslim scholars distinguish between the Land of Islam (where Muslims rule) and the ]Land of War(where Muslims are not in control).

I see what you did there. So obviously stupid. For anyone stupid enough to fall for it. House of war (yeah it's called house and not land) is an area where Muslims can't practice their religon without persecution. Europe that fantastic continent I live in isn't House of War while Burma where Muslims get killed by mobs agitated by supposedly peaceful Buddhist monks is.

I'd rather see the Middle Eastern countries co-operating with the West in space exploration. Saudi Arabia Irrigated large part of the desert with their oil wealth. I think that could be valuable experience in any 'terraforming' attempts!

If the cooperated then the space exploration can go very far. At this moment the Gulf countries have trillions. They are so filthy rich that they are scared of spending it in case inflation destroys them. So they lock it up in accounts and invest it in American and European companies so that in the future when the oil runs out they will be able to keep their lifestyle. The other problem is that their population are to used to being lazy. If we could encourage them to slice of nuggets from their cash mines and invest it on companies and research groups. It would be well worth it.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-13 09:28:07

The situation in most Muslim countries is a lack of tollerance for non-muslims. If Muslims want tollerance for their own religion, they ought to start practicing tollerance in their own majority religion countries, and so far I don't see much tollerance in the Muslim World. I keep on hearing stories of people getting stoned for converting to another religion, and of Islamic Law being enforced, sometime brutally, by the state. I hear stories of people being handed the death sentence for verbally insulting various important figures in the Islamic religion, and violence often ensues at disparaging cartoons of Islamic figures or icons. I'd be very suspicious of muslims and with good reason, especially an influx of them, they have a tendency to want to control societies, they are very intrusive of individual liberties when they do get in power and Muslim democracies need much proping up as in Iraq and Turkey, as they Muslim public does not support them, instead they retreat to the nearest bearded holy man whom they agree with and follow him often to their deaths.

Until Islam shows itself to be a more tollerant religion and society, I'd have trouble tollerating it, its a "two-way street" in otherwords. I don't have problems with individual muslims, but when they all start gathering in one place and begin demanding to run things, that's when I begin to worry.

Gregori · 2008-05-13 11:28:31

The situation in most Muslim countries is a lack of tollerance for non-muslims. If Muslims want tollerance for their own religion, they ought to start practicing tollerance in their own majority religion countries, and so far I don't see much tollerance in the Muslim World. I keep on hearing stories of people getting stoned for converting to another religion, and of Islamic Law being enforced, sometime brutally, by the state. I hear stories of people being handed the death sentence for verbally insulting various important figures in the Islamic religion, and violence often ensues at disparaging cartoons of Islamic figures or icons. I'd be very suspicious of muslims and with good reason, especially an influx of them, they have a tendency to want to control societies, they are very intrusive of individual liberties when they do get in power and Muslim democracies need much proping up as in Iraq and Turkey, as they Muslim public does not support them, instead they retreat to the nearest bearded holy man whom they agree with and follow him often to their deaths.
Until Islam shows itself to be a more tollerant religion and society, I'd have trouble tollerating it, its a "two-way street" in otherwords. I don't have problems with individual muslims, but when they all start gathering in one place and begin demanding to run things, that's when I begin to worry.

apparently you have troubles with democracy. you would rather a Tomocracy!

apart from the whacky xenophobic whinging, I'd rather not drag politics into space. What ever country has the expertise I would co-operate with.

Stormrage · 2008-05-13 16:13:01

The situation in most Muslim countries is a lack of tollerance for non-muslims. If Muslims want tollerance for their own religion, they ought to start practicing tollerance in their own majority religion countries, and so far I don't see much tollerance in the Muslim World. I keep on hearing stories of people getting stoned for converting to another religion, and of Islamic Law being enforced, sometime brutally, by the state. I hear stories of people being handed the death sentence for verbally insulting various important figures in the Islamic religion, and violence often ensues at disparaging cartoons of Islamic figures or icons. I'd be very suspicious of muslims and with good reason, especially an influx of them, they have a tendency to want to control societies, they are very intrusive of individual liberties when they do get in power and Muslim democracies need much proping up as in Iraq and Turkey, as they Muslim public does not support them, instead they retreat to the nearest bearded holy man whom they agree with and follow him often to their deaths.
Until Islam shows itself to be a more tollerant religion and society, I'd have trouble tollerating it, its a "two-way street" in otherwords. I don't have problems with individual muslims, but when they all start gathering in one place and begin demanding to run things, that's when I begin to worry.

You have consistently proven your self to know nothing about Islam and Muslims. You prove to me and everyone here who have sane brains that you don't do any research. You tar everyone with the brush of what you hear from dubious sources.

If this was in 1908 instead of 2008. I bet you would be talking about how Black men rape white women and that they can't control their urges.

Gregori · 2008-05-14 05:57:39

Well, yeah. The same Xenophobic bullshit as yester year.
You can't tar everybody with one brush!

I'm not entirely blind to what goes on in many Islamic countries but I don't think thats a reason to freeze them out of buisness, trade, science and exploration.

The more we co-operate with them, the more chance we have of being a positive influence on them and their public. The more we threaten them and spread anti-islamic hysteria about, the more those people are likely to rally behind a dictator or a religious extremist.

People in those situations get terrified and are likely to rally behind any crazy cause. After 9/11, the american public was pretty scared so they rallied behind Bush and The Iraq war - even though the pretexts were totally absurd and untruthful.

dicktice · 2008-05-15 07:46:19

Tom, your stuff would be more readable if you'd only use a speller. It makes me cringe every time you write "tollerance" for tolerance. Same as when Bush insists of saying "nuculear" instead of nuclear. Ignorance is inferred, rightly or wrongly, when you keep on mispelling, eh?

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-15 09:57:10

The situation in most Muslim countries is a lack of tollerance for non-muslims. If Muslims want tollerance for their own religion, they ought to start practicing tollerance in their own majority religion countries, and so far I don't see much tollerance in the Muslim World. I keep on hearing stories of people getting stoned for converting to another religion, and of Islamic Law being enforced, sometime brutally, by the state. I hear stories of people being handed the death sentence for verbally insulting various important figures in the Islamic religion, and violence often ensues at disparaging cartoons of Islamic figures or icons. I'd be very suspicious of muslims and with good reason, especially an influx of them, they have a tendency to want to control societies, they are very intrusive of individual liberties when they do get in power and Muslim democracies need much proping up as in Iraq and Turkey, as they Muslim public does not support them, instead they retreat to the nearest bearded holy man whom they agree with and follow him often to their deaths.
Until Islam shows itself to be a more tollerant religion and society, I'd have trouble tollerating it, its a "two-way street" in otherwords. I don't have problems with individual muslims, but when they all start gathering in one place and begin demanding to run things, that's when I begin to worry.
You have consistently proven your self to know nothing about Islam and Muslims. You prove to me and everyone here who have sane brains that you don't do any research. You tar everyone with the brush of what you hear from dubious sources.
If this was in 1908 instead of 2008. I bet you would be talking about how Black men rape white women and that they can't control their urges.

Let them put their own houses in order before they come here, is all I ask. What I see about Islam is what goes on in the News, the Iraq War, the Afghan War. We didn't bring fanaticism to the Muslims nor did we teach it to them. Terrorism is not something they learned from the West. The problem is they tollerate terrorism within their own society and their own religious leaders often fan the flames of terrorism and intollerance, their societies are a mess and they made it so. I don't know what other sources you'd expect me to learn about Islam from. Certainly not from their own spokesmen who try to provide excuses for their every intollerant act. Not just overt terrorism for instance but their treatment of women and people of faiths not of their own. It is very hard to set up a church in Saudi Arabia for instance. I've been watching the antics of the Muslim World ever since it was first brought to my attention by the hostage takings in Iran of 1979, no amount of propaganda or excuses can convince me that Islam is "inherently peaceful", people who say that often want us to let our guard down so we'd let in more of them so they can get in extra attacks against us. My tolleration doesn't extend to tollerance for intollerance. If someone is intollerant to me and my way of life, then I'll be intollerant to their right to live in my country and make my life that much more risky. If they blow themselves up, let them blow up their own kind on their own patch of sand, and let us have little to do with them. And those car companies should be giving me choices besides gasoline powered vehicles. After decades of research all we get are prototypes, concept cars, and excuses rather that mass-marketed alternately powered vehicles. I really don't want to hear about Mazda producing hundreds of electric cars by 2010, that is simply not good enough, and it doesn't solve our problem of cutting our entanglement with the Muslim World. I'd rather cut them off completely, as they have proven to be nothing but problems for us with all their religious violence and fanatacism as demostrated by the Iraq War, and terrorism. The technology needs to be developed so we can ignore them.

If the car companies want to sell us big SUVs and fatten their profit margin once again, they need to sell us cars that don't run on gasoline or diesel. I've waited 8 long years and I want results, not excuses, and not that pathetic dribbling of concept cars and test vehicles that they have so far produced which does the public enduring $4 per gallon gasoline no good.

Gregori · 2008-05-15 10:15:23

A consequence of the Iraq war was that global terrorism increased six-fold!! Thats even if you exclude attacks occuring in Iraq.

So much for not fanning the flames.

Constant agression and threats on the West part against Middle Eastern states is having the nice effect of creating support for Islamic extremism and proping up dicatorial regimes. When you invade Muslim states left right and center and give millitary support to a racist state like Israel - it raises a few eyebrows in the Middle East. It creates extreme hatred and fear. When under attack, Its not suprising that people rally behind dictators, extremists etc etc

To make the situation worse, Washington is more than happy to prop up and support dictatorial regimes like in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. They signed a $20 Billion weapons deal with the Kingdom.

Well the situation has been a pretty boring repeat of all the wrong policies for a decades and its time they put someone in the Whitehouse who actually wants to stop terrorism or has a clue about how to do it!

Commodore · 2008-05-15 23:53:49

The term "global terrorism" really doesn't involve anything new. The Arabs, and by extension, Muslims (yeah, Christians did for a while too), had been doing it to themselves in various forms for centuries.

We just pointed out that it really isn't helpful, and now they are venting a little bit our way.

Since we inhabit the same planet, now we have to deal with.

cIclops · 2008-05-16 03:26:19

A consequence of the Iraq war was that global terrorism increased six-fold!! Thats even if you exclude attacks occuring in Iraq.
So much for not fanning the flames.

Not really unless what Saddam Hussein was doing to his people for 30 years can be called good governance. Over 300,000 mass graves have been found in Iraq since the liberation, all filled with people he had tortured and killed. Let alone the 5000 he killed with chemical weapons and the unknown number he was responsible for killing during the Iran Iraq war, estimated at over one million. His was killing people by the thousands right up until the invasion stopped him. Random acts of terror are horrific but at least civilians have a chance, but having to the entire apparatus of the state used against them for thirty year is beyond horror. In comparison with the "six fold " increase in global terrorism since 2003 the extent of Saddam's terror was orders of magnitude worse.

This shifting of the blame won't work anymore; it's the terrorists, namely AQ, Baathists, Sunni and Shia extremists who are responsible for terrorism!

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-16 08:43:14

A consequence of the Iraq war was that global terrorism increased six-fold!! Thats even if you exclude attacks occuring in Iraq.
So much for not fanning the flames.
Not really unless what Saddam Hussein was doing to his people for 30 years can be called good governance. Over 300,000 mass graves have been found in Iraq since the liberation, all filled with people he had tortured and killed. Let alone the 5000 he killed with chemical weapons and the unknown number he was responsible for killing during the Iran Iraq war, estimated at over one million. His was killing people by the thousands right up until the invasion stopped him. Random acts of terror are horrific but at least civilians have a chance, but having to the entire apparatus of the state used against them for thirty year is beyond horror. In comparison with the "six fold " increase in global terrorism since 2003 the extent of Saddam's terror was orders of magnitude worse.
This shifting of the blame won't work anymore; it's the terrorists, namely AQ, Baathists, Sunni and Shia extremists who are responsible for terrorism!

There is a certain mindset on the so called Liberal side of the political spectrum to blame America first whenever there is a problem.

For example: the problem is terrorism
Liberals automatically think: how is America to blame?
They work their minds over this problem and try to make the pieces fit into their preconceived notion that America is to blame.
After a while they put together a story involving Big Corporate Interests and their campaign contributions to Republican politicians and the President and they immediately come up with the notion that the Iraq War was started for make War Profits for the Big Corporate Interests. The Big Corporation is most Liberals favorite villain, it is the most easy for liberals to attack because they reside in the United States and are subject to its laws and taxes. The Terrorist Sponsoring Nation is beyond their reach because it involves use of the military to get at, and institution that most liberals despise, because they don't like getting up early in the morning at the sound of a bugle call and doing their push-ups, they don't like a drill sergent screaming in their faces and telling them to "button that button", or to polish those boots. Liberals like to grow long hair and they don't like those crew cuts sported by most military soldiers. Soldiers aren't 'cool' to them, they'd rather sick lawyers on the Big Corporations and tax them to death than to send soldiers to some distant shore to topple some dictator who's giving America problems.

I've noticed that Democrats like to look for scapegoats. When the price of oil is high, it must be because of collusion and price fixing by the Big Oil Companies and it could not possibly be because of tight supply. It is much easier for Liberal politicians to tax the Big Oil Companies' windfall profits than to actually do something to increase the supply of oil, such as drilling in Alaska's North slope. So instead of solving problems Democrats like to point fingers and say, "Its your fault! Its your fault!" and they figure they can keep doing this for 2, 4, or 6 years while they try to get reelected, and if they can keep of displacing the blame away from foreign dictators and towards American Big Oil Companies, they figure they can get reelected without alienating any of their core Environmental supporters.

Gregori · 2008-05-16 08:50:46

Not really unless what Saddam Hussein was doing to his people for 30 years can be called good governance. Over 300,000 mass graves have been found in Iraq since the liberation, all filled with people he had tortured and killed. Let alone the 5000 he killed with chemical weapons and the unknown number he was responsible for killing during the Iran Iraq war, estimated at over one million. His was killing people by the thousands right up until the invasion stopped him. Random acts of terror are horrific but at least civilians have a chance, but having to the entire apparatus of the state used against them for thirty year is beyond horror. In comparison with the "six fold " increase in global terrorism since 2003 the extent of Saddam's terror was orders of magnitude worse.
This shifting of the blame won't work anymore; it's the terrorists, namely AQ, Baathists, Sunni and Shia extremists who are responsible for terrorism!

Yeah, it was a horrific regime. Nobody doubts that.

What also can't be doubted are the statistics, and they show that after US agression in the Middle East post 2003, terrorism increased around the world six-fold!

Since I don't believe in magic, its pretty clear the wars in the middle east are partially responsible for this increase terrorism.

Fighting Islamic terrorism was one the proposed goals of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has failed and hugely increased terrorism aswell as causing 100 000's of unnessecary deaths.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-05-16 09:09:41

Not really unless what Saddam Hussein was doing to his people for 30 years can be called good governance. Over 300,000 mass graves have been found in Iraq since the liberation, all filled with people he had tortured and killed. Let alone the 5000 he killed with chemical weapons and the unknown number he was responsible for killing during the Iran Iraq war, estimated at over one million. His was killing people by the thousands right up until the invasion stopped him. Random acts of terror are horrific but at least civilians have a chance, but having to the entire apparatus of the state used against them for thirty year is beyond horror. In comparison with the "six fold " increase in global terrorism since 2003 the extent of Saddam's terror was orders of magnitude worse.
This shifting of the blame won't work anymore; it's the terrorists, namely AQ, Baathists, Sunni and Shia extremists who are responsible for terrorism!
Yeah, it was a horrific regime. Nobody doubts that.
What also can't be doubted are the statistics, and they show that after US agression in the Middle East post 2003, terrorism increased around the world six-fold!

That does not establish a causial relationship. You know perfectly well, that just because something preceded something else does not mean that it caused it.
For example: Did the entry of the United States into World War II cause the Holocaust?
It is true that the Holocaust did not really start until the United States declared War on Japan which then caused Germany to declare war on the United States, and then the first Jews were shipped to the Death Camps.
So did the United States cause the Holocaust by defending itself after the attack on Pearl Harbor?
If the United States simply surrendered to Japan, would the Jews have been spared?
I tell you, that is Blame America First thinking.

Since I don't believe in magic, its pretty clear the wars in the middle east are partially responsible for this increase terrorism.

Or maybe terrorism was partially responsible for the increase of wars in the Middle East, the attack on the World Trade Center, and the Pentagon did precede those wars you are talking about.

Fighting Islamic terrorism was one the proposed goals of the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has failed and hugely increased terrorism aswell as causing 100 000's of unnessecary deaths.

No I think those we're quite necessary deaths, those terrorists had to die. If you fight terrorists, those terrorists will fight back, to solve the problem you must first go through more pain to get rid of them, I am not surprised by that.

Gregori · 2008-05-16 09:32:51

Well, If you feel you want to cause 'necessary' deaths to fight terrorism, please allow 100 000 innocent Americans to die and stop making the Middle East to pay the tab. They never asked nor invited.

Its clear that Terrorism wasn't the cause of the Iraq war, since none of the terrorists involved in 9/11 came from Iraq or had anything to do with Saddam. Bin Laden despises leaders like Saddam because they precided over mostly secular goverments (albiet very horrible ones')

You have to ask where all the extra terrorism came from? Its not magic. Infact, planners predicted that this what the war would cause. The Holocaust is very different because it was higly planned and a specific event. The rise of global terrorism is an unorganized but general trend that occurs mostly after US aggression in the Middle East.

A six fold increase in terrorism didn't appear for no reason and its fairly unlikely that intervention in Muslim states isn't stoking the flames.

If you claim to be combatting terrorism, but all your actions are resulting in more terrorism - Its time to change policy and do something that works.

Stormrage · 2008-05-16 15:37:57

Let them put their own houses in order before they come here, is all I ask. What I see about Islam is what goes on in the News, the Iraq War, the Afghan War.

Proving once again that you have no idea what your talking about. Over the last few years every time I saw a news report on Germans (that includes the Austrians). It always involves killings and torturing. German babies being killed by their mothers in Easter Germany. German baby Polar Bears being threatened with death and one of them actually died. German girls being kidnapped and locked in cellars for years where they get sexually abused. If I was like you. I would assume that Germans are a bunch of evil people. Which naturally mean that Americans would be evil and to a lesser extent the Brits.

We didn't bring fanaticism to the Muslims nor did we teach it to them

If you bothered to study you would know where Islamic radicalism comes from and why./ Short story. It involves a lot of death of muslims primarly by Americans and those who support them .

Not really unless what Saddam Hussein was doing to his people for 30 years can be called good governance. Over 300,000 mass graves have been found in Iraq since the liberation,

Sounds like your misinformed. The latest figure I saw was about 300. I don't know where you got the other 299.7k. Hey you wanna guess how many Iraqis have died since America has invaded?

There is a certain mindset on the so called Liberal side of the political spectrum to blame America first whenever there is a problem.

There is a certain mindset in American conservatives. It always revolves in taking the blame for anything their country does and when one of their people are hurt they go into over drive. It's sort of reminiscent of the Indian Mutiny in the British Raj. The British over reacted to the death of English colonials but felt nothing for the thousands of Indians they hanged. Simple fact. Conservatives never evolve. They always stay the same.

cIclops · 2008-05-17 05:45:55

Well, If you feel you want to cause 'necessary' deaths to fight terrorism, please allow 100 000 innocent Americans to die and stop making the Middle East to pay the tab. They never asked nor invited.

"please allow 100 000 innocent Americans to die" What??

Most people value life unlike the AQ and other terrorists who have made it clear that life is of no consequence to them other than a way to leverage their own power and force eveyone to worship their own perverted form of Islam. It's astounding that apologists for terrorism not only ignore its horrific deliberate inhuman brutality aimed at innocent civilians but spend their time and energy blaming those who are trying to deal with it.

cIclops · 2008-05-17 05:57:54

Sounds like your misinformed. The latest figure I saw was about 300. I don't know where you got the other 299.7k. Hey you wanna guess how many Iraqis have died since America has invaded?

Nope. At least 300,000 graves, and they keep finding more.

Unlike some people who believe the largest number they read, the number of people who have died in Iraq since the removal of the Baathist terror regime is not precisely known. What is known is that the majority of them have not been killed by Coalition forces, and the majority of those that were, were terrorists and insurgents. Furthermore, many more civilians would probably have died under five more years of Saddam's rule.

Stormrage · 2008-05-17 07:17:52

Most people value life unlike the AQ and other terrorists who have made it clear that life is of no consequence to them other than a way to leverage their own power and force eveyone to worship their own perverted form of Islam. It's astounding that apologists for terrorism not only ignore its horrific deliberate inhuman brutality aimed at innocent civilians but spend their time and energy blaming those who are trying to deal with it.

I'm actually astounded at you neo-cons. You support war on terrorism and complain about the inhumanity of terrorists. Yet you ignore and sometimes even actually support torture,kidnapping of "suspects" and black sites. You support the War on Iraq DESPITE THE FACT THAT SADDAM WAS A SECULAR LEADER. When he was in power he only used religion to show his people that he was "the defender of Islam". You people support Israel and their war crimes.

It's one thing to be anti terrorist and pro Israel. It's an another thing to support war crimes committed by USA and Israel. That is why you people are worse then liberals. I have never seen a liberal who agreed with terrorist actions. At best they would agree with their aims like the freeing Iraq from occupation or the defence of Lebanon by Hezbollah but never the methods.

Nope. At least 300,000 graves, and they keep finding more.
Unlike some people who believe the largest number they read, the number of people who have died in Iraq since the removal of the Baathist terror regime is not precisely known. What is known is that the majority of them have not been killed by Coalition forces, and the majority of those that were, were terrorists and insurgents. Furthermore, many more civilians would probably have died under five more years of Saddam's rule.

Well I'm going to have to call bullshit on that. There is no way in Gods green earth that 300k mass graves would be found and barely anybody knows about it. Heck Bush and Hamas fan McCain would be talking about it all day long.

Btw the minimum casualties can be guessed in Iraq. All Iraqi Morgues and Hospitals have to tell the Minstery of Health of any deaths and wounds at the end of the day. In 2006 before the Civil War reached it's height a 150,000 people where dead. 150,000 people who would have been alive today if it wasn't for USA. In Saddams time. Saddam would only kill you if you stood in his way,threatened his power or embarrassed him. The Kurds betrayed Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and they got gassed. The Shia and the Kurds fought to over throw Saddam in the 90s and they got massacred. Saddam never went around killing people for the fun. In post Invasion Iraq people can die just going to the shops.

I sometimes Wish that Americans get a taste of what they are giving the world. Other wise they wouldn't be so damn ignorant. How many rednecks would complain about a mixed race man with a weird name not wearing a stupid flag pin if their children were starving to death and their husbands were being killed at the supermarkets?

Gregori · 2008-05-17 07:26:32

Well, If you feel you want to cause 'necessary' deaths to fight terrorism, please allow 100 000 innocent Americans to die and stop making the Middle East to pay the tab. They never asked nor invited.
"please allow 100 000 innocent Americans to die" What??
Most people value life unlike the AQ and other terrorists who have made it clear that life is of no consequence to them other than a way to leverage their own power and force eveyone to worship their own perverted form of Islam. It's astounding that apologists for terrorism not only ignore its horrific deliberate inhuman brutality aimed at innocent civilians but spend their time and energy blaming those who are trying to deal with it.

Thats the whole point. They're not dealing with it!
Every single action is resulting in more terrorism.

People like Tom Kalbfus seem to think its okay for 100 000 innocent Iraqi's to die in America's pursuit of its supposed goals in Iraq. Why is it so unreasonable that 100 000 innocent Americans should be sacrificed for such noble goals? The principles you apply to others, you must be willing to accept yourselves!

cIclops · 2008-05-17 08:22:31

I'm actually astounded at you neo-cons. You support war on terrorism and complain about the inhumanity of terrorists. Yet you ignore and sometimes even actually support torture,kidnapping of "suspects" and black sites. You support the War on Iraq DESPITE THE FACT THAT SADDAM WAS A SECULAR LEADER. When he was in power he only used religion to show his people that he was "the defender of Islam". You people support Israel and their war crimes.

Thanks for providing a perfect example of how a discussion about the nature of terrorism and those that choose to ignore it gets transformed into a personal attack. Instead of debating the character of terror or the point that some people chose to overlook it and blame others, you chose to fabricate my position and facts on entirely different topics. Further discussion is probably pointless and will no doubt be unpleasant.

Gregori · 2008-05-17 08:30:19

I'm actually astounded at you neo-cons. You support war on terrorism and complain about the inhumanity of terrorists. Yet you ignore and sometimes even actually support torture,kidnapping of "suspects" and black sites. You support the War on Iraq DESPITE THE FACT THAT SADDAM WAS A SECULAR LEADER. When he was in power he only used religion to show his people that he was "the defender of Islam". You people support Israel and their war crimes.
Thanks for providing a perfect example of how a discussion about the nature of terrorism and those that choose to ignore it gets transformed into a personal attack. Instead of debating the character of terror or the point that some people chose to overlook it and blame others, you chose to fabricate my position and facts on entirely different topics. Further discussion is probably pointless and will no doubt be unpleasant.

despite hints of that being personal, he also made a tonne of really valid points.

cIclops · 2008-05-17 08:33:10

It's astounding that apologists for terrorism not only ignore its horrific deliberate inhuman brutality aimed at innocent civilians but spend their time and energy blaming those who are trying to deal with it.
Thats the whole point. They're not dealing with it!
Every single action is resulting in more terrorism.

There's plenty of evidence to show the current military strategy is working and terrorism is being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. As is often said, the Islamists can't win their war with the West, but the West can lose it.

So what's the alternative for dealing with radial Islamic terrorism, surrender and convert to Wahhabism?

Gregori · 2008-05-17 08:41:40

So what's the alternative for dealing with radial Islamic terrorism, surrender and convert to Wahhabism?
There's plenty of evidence to show the current military strategy is working and terrorism is being defeated in Iraq and Afghanistan. As is often said, the Islamists can't win their war with the West, but the West can lose it.

There is little evidence to suggest anything like that, it points quite to contrary. Its not working and the world is a much less safe place than it was 5 years ago. Invading Iraq drew Islamic terrorists towards that country. It was largely a secular state before that. (Albeit run by Saddam and his gang)

The alternative is to stop pretending they're fighting a war on terror and actually come up with a decent plan.

Taking away the support base and causes of terrorism might be a good start. That might mean - not attacking and occupying muslim countries.
If they feel like they're being constantly threatened and under attack by the west its not so suprising that they would rally behind brutal tyrants and terrorists.

Another helpful strategy would be be dealing with the Israeli-Palestine conflict in a fair and unbiased manner. Preferential treatment of Israel, allowing it to act like a rogue state, well that provokes a lot of hatred in the muslim world.

cIclops · 2008-05-17 08:50:06

There is little evidence to suggest anything like that, it points quite to contrary. Its not working and the world is a much less safe place than it was 5 years ago. Invading Iraq drew Islamic terrorists towards that country. It was largely a secular state before that. (Albeit run by Saddam and his gang)
The alternative is to stop pretending they're fighting a war on terror and actually come up with a decent plan.

Well here's a small piece of evidence from yesterday - now where's the evidence to show that the Iraqi government and coalition strategy is not working?

This is the only decent plan, there really isn't other other except surrender unless you have some magical way of stopping determined suicide bombers and killers.

edit:
Sorry i missed your last point:

Taking away the support base and causes of terrorism might be a good start. That might mean - not attacking and occupying muslim countries.

Invading Afghanistan and fighting AQ and the Iranian backed groups in Iraq is eroding their support base. The coalition is under UN mandate to be inside both Iraq and Afghanistan as well as being requested by their governments. Should the coalition ignore the UN and those governments that desperately need help?

Islamic terrorism existed a long time before the Baathists and the Taliban were removed from power. What are the causes of Islamic terrorism?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2008-05-12 06:36:49

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#27 2008-05-12 14:00:50

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#28 2008-05-13 09:28:07

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#29 2008-05-13 11:28:31

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#30 2008-05-13 16:13:01

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#31 2008-05-14 05:57:39

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#32 2008-05-15 07:46:19

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#33 2008-05-15 09:57:10

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#34 2008-05-15 10:15:23

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#35 2008-05-15 23:53:49

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#36 2008-05-16 03:26:19

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#37 2008-05-16 08:43:14

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#38 2008-05-16 08:50:46

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#39 2008-05-16 09:09:41

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#40 2008-05-16 09:32:51

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#41 2008-05-16 15:37:57

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#42 2008-05-17 05:45:55

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#43 2008-05-17 05:57:54

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#44 2008-05-17 07:17:52

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#45 2008-05-17 07:26:32

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#46 2008-05-17 08:22:31

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#47 2008-05-17 08:30:19

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#48 2008-05-17 08:33:10

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#49 2008-05-17 08:41:40

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

#50 2008-05-17 08:50:06

Re: Did Iran become a player in space ?

Board footer