Quote: bkidd said..
We have fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends and lovers fighting in Iraq. We don't want to have to explain to our childern that daddy isn't coming home because he's laying face down in the dirt thousands of miles away fighting for people that can't seem to fight for themselves.

Don't send them, then.
You don't want to explain to your children that "daddy isn't coming home because he's laying face down in the dirt thousands of miles away"?
But you completely accept that we explain to our:
- Old men, women, and children who've been deprived of food, water, medication for years
- Children that lose daddy, mummy, bro, sis, uncle, aunt, friends, and lovers in a single stupid city bombardment
- To a child that lost both his hands, and his lower half (See a photo here: http://www.ahram.org.eg/ARCHIVE/Index.asp?CurFN=SPOR1.HTM&DID=7722)
- To a woman that's been stripped down to the bone in public to be inspected

To all those that this is happening because the US is finishing its deals with one of its agents?
Sure, will do. But don't expect them to be happy.

Quote: bkidd said..
Honestly, I can say that I hate the fact we're over there. War is something that should never happen, but unfortunately it does.

There are situations when war is a must. War will always happen, because we're on earth, not in heaven. Many people will always want to invade other people.
But the currently-ending war, as I explained, isn't for God, isn't for good, isn't for freedom.

Quote: bkidd said..
The United States has become the world's babysitter.

I disagree, the US has become the world's biggest nose-poker and terrorist.

Quote: bkidd said..
In my opinion the people of Iraq should deal with Saddam themselves, but obviously he poses a larger threat with his hatred for my country.

I don't think he could do anything after what you've done to Iraq. The siege completely destroyed the country.

Quote: bkidd..
I wish I had something more moving to say, but unfortunately, all I can muster is...I'm sorry.

Saying "sorry" isn't enough.
No.
It won't lift the oppression that has happened. It won't erase the memories that have been carved in the mind. It won't reduce the anger, the rage, the fires that are burning inside.
No.
It won't reclaim the land, nor will it resurrect the dead.

Instead of saying sorry, do what you can to stop this, to prevent it from ever happening again. Doing… that's how things change.

Soon god-willing, will come a day, that there's an Islamic country. Then, things will change, we'll no longer killed like rabid dogs, our lives will become of value, our words will become heard, the massacres and scandals happening will stop.
Soon, every criminal will pay the price, if not in this life, in the after-life.
Israel
Instead of writing a lot of stuff about this, I'll redirect you to a good read: http://www.cactus48.com/truth.html
This is the "The Origin of the Palestine-Israel conflict" by the Jews for justice of the middle east.
It's mainly composed of quotes from different books, and it'll save both of us a huge amount of time.

The only thing I'll add here is to emphasize the importance of this case to the Muslims. Our most 2 important priorities now are (in order):
1. Establish an Islamic country
2. Reclaim Palestine

Quote: swingangel said..
the Arabs are obsessed with Isreal because of the whole Islam/Jewish thing. It goes way back to Abraham.. Ishmael & Isaac. Jews believe Isaac was the chosen son of Abraham and therefore Jews are rightful hiers to Abrahams blessing (among other things, the land Israel and Arabs fight over). Whereas Muslims believe Ishmael was the chosen son and so on..

No. We don't believe there was a promise, in the 1st place. We believe that the bible isn't the original version, that it was modified. We only believe in events that happened before the revelation of the Koran (miracles of Jesus, Moses, ...etc) because the Koran tells us about them.
We neither believe nor disbelieve in any of the events that are told in the bible, but not told in the Koran or Sunnah, as Prophet Muhammad – PPBUH – ordered us to do.

We're obsessed with Israel just as anyone else would be obsessed with invaders that steal his land, kill his people day and night, since 1948 till now.

Quote: swingangel said..
Christianity, being a religion sprung from Judiasm, tends to side with the Jews.. America being a mostly christian country, gets crap from Arab countries for this view

Yes. It seems that there's a great number of Christians that believe Jesus' return isn't going to happen before the establishment of a Jewish state, and the fulfillment of the assumed promise.

The (Catholic) Christians here don't.

Dawn, I appreciate you comments and I am happy to have them expressed on the web-site. I takes alot of guts for you to post that and I commend you on that. However I disagree with almost everything you say but for times sake I will only address some.
First, though you don't want to hear it, I am sorry for the innocent people of Iraq. I am sorry that 1st. they had a ruthless dictator and 2nd that they had to endure what America just had to do. However I beleive that the islamic countries (for the most part) have no accountablitiy when it comes to human life. A man could rise to power in any Islmaic country and do the same thing Suddam did. The world has called on the U.S. to be involved like it is, the Amerian people have never wanted that. If the Islamic countries could ban together and stop fighing among themselves,like they always have, than maybe they would accomplish more. Maybe if they came together and had more "doings" than the U.S wouldn't have had to step in.
and sure the U.S. was fundamental in setting up Isreal and I do agree that the Palastian Arabs have been treated wrongly. You must remeber that Isrealies lived in Palastine too with the Arabs. The land was theirs also, not just the Arabs. Why don't the Arabs just create their own gov't, backed by the muslims countries and I guarantee you the U.S. would recongize them, but I don't think it will happen. Just like in the 1940's the Muslim world fought over which Muslim nation would control Palastine and the result was a lack of a Arab nation in Palastine.

When it comes to you belief in the Koran, that is just what it is, a belief. Faith, you choose to believe and so when you disount the bible on you beliefs your just picking one in front of the other.

and by the way, without the west the Arab nations have no economy! You might control the oil but without the demand you have nothing. and the Muslim countries lack natural resources worth anything.

Likewise, I really appreciate the post. I'm not sure exactly where to start, so I'm just going to take a piece at a time. One of the things I have never understood about Islam, or any religion for that matter, is the importance that is put on trivial matters. If God/Allah hates violence, and Allah is all that matters, why would you fight over a worthless strip of desert. You can worhship Allah anywhere in the world, peacefully. Wouldn't that be better than killing each other in the streets like rabbid dogs? Wouldn't a good, loving, and just God honor that?

Muslim Arabs already inhabit most of the region. Pick a country.. any country, and go there. Build more mosques if it's that important (it shouldn't be). I understand the importance of tradition and ritual, but by placing reverence on a strip of land merely because it's once where the great prophets used to live is a little sacriligious isn't it? After all, there is only one God/Allah. The ultimate sin in Islam is to place anything before Allah, is it not?

Thank you for that post Dawn. It was informative if not to well thought out. I saw a lot of things that I disagree with but I’ll try and condense it as much as I can.

Quote: . No. The ignorance of the people give him the power, not religion. Had he tried to fool others he would've never been obeyed, but rather sentenced to trial.
2. Saddam Hussein's government is a secular one, not a religious one. For ex, prostitution is a licensed Job there. If a country has such a thing, then it's clearly not applying the Sharia (which prohibits prostitution), and it's not an Islamic country/government.

Actually you are wrong here. The peoples ignorance is not what brought him to power it was him killing off all his opposition. That and the violent Batth (spelling?) party that liked the ruthless way that he did business.

Quote: 2. The US is supporting Israel because of the Jeudo-Christian beliefs, like those about Jesus' return.
3. Israel was created and supported on the basis of the "assumed" promise that God gave to Abraham. Isn't that "religion"?
4. A democratic government like that of Israel elected a butcher, Ariel Sharon, to satisfy their religious dreams and desires

Yes the US supports Israel. But the US is not Israel, and vise versa. We did not create Isreal, and even if we had it was not to because of some biblical promise. The US has taken great pains to make sure that the government is free of religious intervention. In response to your #4 comment here. Don’t even try and speak of butchers. Sharon may very well be but he is no worse then the Palestinian leader, defiantly no worse then Saddam, and any number of other leaders in the Middle east. And the key term here is elected. The people made that choice for themselves, it was not thrust on them.

Quote: Terrorists aren't Islam's responsibility. I've shown you that the Koran is clear about this.
Terrorism is your responsibility.
What happened in 11th of September was a direct result of the US oppressing policy.
The Israel support issue alone and its complications is enough to make anyone who knows the truth mad at the US for eternity. And if he's initially an extremist – Extremism is a psychological case that's not religion/race-dependent – then you're in trouble.

We totally disagree, and are against such terrorist acts (== 11th September).

Ok I’m not to sure of the context here so correct me if I got this one wrong.
This one really F@*$ing pisses me off. Osama himself said that the attacks were because Americans set foot on the holy land. Let me say that again so that everyone really get it. SET FOOT ON THE HOLY LAND. Set foot on the F@*$ing holy land. And why were we there? To get an aggressive dictator out of an innocent Arab country, Muslim I might add,. And this is America’s fault how? Please explain this one to me. But NO NO NO!!!!!!. What happened to us is by no means our fault. It is the fault of Islam, or, to be more accurate, the ignorant, jealous, inflammatory, leftist, extremists, that pervert Islam and the fault of those that do nothing to stop them. Even against their own code. That’s whose fault it is. And if you say that we support Israel so we are worthy of a cowardly attack, killing thousands of innocents like Sep. 11th then I say providing an attack like that on us is justification of nuking the hell out of anyone everyone that was involved no matter how small a part they may have played. The same thing but on a bigger scale. How can you say something so stupid and ignorant. What a warped view of reality you all must have to think this way. How can any human say such things. And if you do F@*$ you and find a shelter. I’m sure there will be more attack on America but mark my words, you think what we do now is terrible, you wait until we get hit again and we get even more pissed. More and more pissed with each gutless suicide attack, each worm ridden excuse for a man that sneaks in and bombs something. The vengeance we will reap will be stunning. So keep supporting terror, keep blaming the US for bringing it on ourselves and I say those of you who say that will have brought on yourselves the whirlwind of death you’ll get.

Ok now that I have taken a deep breath I would like to say that if it read your post here wrong then I am truly and deeply sorry for what I just said to you but I do still feel that way. But I am sorry if I got your post wrong here.

Quote: The claim that "the current governments are true representatives of Islam" is a weak one, that is simply shattered upon inspection. Just compare the current governments and governors to the ones from the past.

But what does that matter. Each of these governments claims they are Islamic so that is what we see them as. Get rid of these governments, as per your book, so we can see a truly Islamic government. It is truly something that I would like to see.

Quote: Out? The US will monopolize the reconstruction of Iraq. American companies will do it. That helps fight unemployment.

I don't think the forces will leave before the reconstruction's done. And after the reconstruction's done, someday, who knows. Maybe the US forces will stay a little more just to ensure things are going smoothly for the new government.

What you're saying reminds me of what Israel has done after the invasion of Lebanon 1982, when they said they were going to do a "specific" job and get out. They stayed for 18 years!
Oil

Exactly. We are going to monopolize the reconstruction. And we should. Iraq obviously can’t do it. The UN only wants in so they can protect their own interests. And we did the work to free the Iraqi people. And your right they won’t leave before they are done. How stupid would that be. Do all that work to fix Iraq and leave before we are done so that it can get screwed up again. We are going to make it an Iraqi government by Iraqis. What difference does it make how long we are there we are not going to rule the country. And in response to your comment about Israel. We are doing our specific job. Building a new government in Iraq. One for the people. Once we accomplish this we will leave. As history has shown.

Quote: Yes, Not all. Maybe half of them would do?
My original statement was out of sarcasm. While The US' goal is not to kill all Iraqi citizens, it was definitely obvious that they've no problem with killing lots of them. They knew they were going to kill lots of them.

Bombing cities results in "MASS" casualties among civilians.
The red-cross reported (about 2 or 3 days before the fall of Baghdad) that the 'Civilian' casualties flow to hospitals is 100/hour. Do you understand what that means?

Your "smart" bombs have proven to be extra-dumb before, in the Afghanistan war. The bombs hit civilians, caravans, and even a "wedding" ceremonial!

What about cutting off electricity and water supplies off Al-Basra?
Have you tried living without electricity and water for 4 or 5 days?
What about the kids that need food and water, what about the old men, the women?

What has happened is that you saved your soldiers' lives by wasting the lives of the civilians. Had you been so keen to keep the civilians alive, you would've marched in with your soldiers directly, instead of bombing cities crammed-full of civilians.
Yeah, half of your soldiers – if not all – would've been dead. So what? Those who fight are the ones that face death. Trading soldiers' lives for civilian lives isn't honorable.

Ok First off America did not want to kill civilian. And in any war there are going to be civilian casualties. We knew civilians would die but lets look as whose fault that is. If Saddam had cared about his people he would have moved his units out into the desert to fight us there, not camped them out near hospitals and orphanages. He would have been far more forthcoming to the inspectors when he had the chance. If he cared for his people none of this would have ever happened. He wouldn’t own twenty something palaces while his people starved. This is another sore spot I have. America gets blamed for all this stuff that happens. Looting in Bagdad for example. Of course its our fault, that is perfectly logical. It can’t be the fault of Iraqi people that are doing the looting, no way. It can’t be the fault of the government that starved them and kept them poor, impossible. Nope it has to be Americas fault cause they wont gun down looters as they run away with national artifacts. Of course we would be blamed if we did gun down those looters. So it is not Americas fault that civilians died but Saddam’s because of where he put his military.
And the air campaign that you so criticize saved countless civilian lives. When we bombed Bagdad we hit military and government structures only. Sure bombs go astray, piolets make errors, and things are bound to go wrong some of the time, no one is perfect. But it was still far better than flying a fleet of B-52 over the place and carpet bombing it don’t ya think. Back to the main point though. Had we not softened up the republic guard then the resistance we faced going into Bagdad with troops would have been far more stiff. Even carpet bombing would have a smaller body count than marching into an occupied city with troops and tanks. So your argument here holds no water at all. The bombing saved thousands of lives, both Iraqi and American.

Quote: The Kennedy government/administration was a pioneer in full usage of chemical weapons in Vietnam. In 1988, it was reported that "there are thousands of Vietnamese people dying from the traces/trails of the chemical war". Reports estimate quarter a million victims in southern Vietnam, not in northern Vietnam. (The US had announced that its goal is to aid Southern Vietnam against the communist northern Vietnam!!!!)

I would like to see what sources you used for this one because it is blatantly wrong.

Quote: - The nuking of Japan, TWICE!
Hiroshima: At least 78,000 people were killed outright, 10,000 were never found, and more than 70,000 were injured. Almost 2 thirds of the city was destroyed.

Nagasaki: About 40,000 were killed, and the same number were injured.

Why did the "righteous" people throw the 2nd bomb - assuming throwing the 1st one is morally acceptable - ?

because they dropped them at pretty much the same time. And even with the huge body count of The Bomb. It was less then it would have been with an invasion of Japan. That and we saved countless American lives. Yes it is more important to us to save American lives then anyone else. Just as it would be for you if you Egypt went to war. You want less Egyptians to die then the enemy. That and we never claimed to be righteous but you should take a look at the track record of Japan in that war and you will see the horrendous atrocities they committed when they invaded China before you play them and the poor innocent country that America bullied. Oh and we apologised for the A bomb but we still have heard nothing for Pearl Harbor. Just to let you know.

Quote: Why doesn't the US start with Israel, or itself, or North Korea!

Well we are on the same side with Israel, we did fight ourselves.... it sucked. And we will fight Korea if diplomacy does not work. I would like to take this time to remind you and all those that may happen to read this post that we gave Iraq 12 years to comply while Korea hasn’t even had a year yet. Oh and they are already showing signs of cooperating.

Quote: - Hollywood movies anyone? The worst collection of people are given a chance to brain-wash the minds of the world, just like putting poison in sweets.
There's a 5$ book called something like "Arabic and Muslim stereotypes in the American Media" or something similar. I can drop you a link to that book if you like. Remember "The siege"?

Where do you think this stereotype came from?

Quote: The agreement of "Briton woods" (spelling?), 1944, officially fixed the roots of the domination of the US dollar, equating it with gold.
There was also the "Bloom Bernes" (spelling?) agreement in 1944 with France, that opened the French markets condition-lessly for the US exports.

The Marshall project, 1947, credited 17 billion dollars to be given to Europe, but not for free. Besides being necessary because of the cold war, this money gave the US:
1. A political pressure force over Europe
2. Economical patents in the markets of Europe, that were opened widly to the US products

Keep in mind that we also got their country back for them at the cost of American blood, and gave it right back to them.
And in the second part here the money was never repaid and why should we give away free money anyway. Would you give me free money to rebuild my fence, or come and do it for me for free?


I’m going to try and sum up some of the other things that I wanted to respond to. I agree with Micah777. With out America and the west then the Middle East would collapse. There is no large economy there but the oil and who buys the oil? America. You keep trying to portray the US for not helping enough in some cases but you condemn us for doing it in others. Like the statement you made about China. How is it our responsibility to end their famine. We are giving them aid. How much is Egypt going to give them. In fact what other countries are going to give them help at all? My guess would be not many. So where is the greater evil here. Those who do not completely fix other countries problems or those that do nothing at all? But see here as in other places in both your statements you contradict yourself. You say you don’t want America to get involved with other countries and then you say we are evil because we don’t give enough. Seems like the idea is that America is just not liked so no matter what we do we are evil. America is going to look after her own interests just as any other country would that is how it is for anyone. I don’t see how you can call us bad for doing so. We do much good in this world and for the people of this world. Iraq will be a much better place when we are done as will Afghanistan. Not a better place for us per say, but for the peoples of those lands. I’m not saying that America is perfect. We are far far far from that. But we are also far far better than most countries our there. I would say than all countries but I cant make that claim. What has the Middle east done for the world in recent times. What has the far east done? Australia? Russia? France? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing. So when it comes down to the end of things, this hate for us is nonsense jealousy, nothing more. I wish someone could make me believe otherwise but so far no one has. Those who have tried have only made my belief stronger. We are not saints, nor are we perfect, but we are pretty damn good. Most of the things that we have done may help us out. But they really helped out the rest of the world.

Yay Gidian!
Also, let's not forget the United States' policies regarding our "open door". We have, since the beginning, allowed people of all countries to come to our nation and become U.S. citizens. When that happens, they are given the same freedoms and liberties we all have. There are thousands upon thousands of the world's people flocking to this country every day to become part of this great place. If we are so hated, and useless, why the need to come here?

why the need to come here?

So we can destroy it from the inside.

In the height of the cold war, Russian spies were in this country fitting in and their goals were things like getting jobs writting newspaper editorials and infiltrating political parties to disrupt democratic ideals....of course coming here and learning to fly planes into building seems to be much more effective.

Yep, but that is the catch 22 about us. We want to give freedom to everyone even at the cost of loosing our security. That shows the truth of our intentions and inherant goodness to me.

Yes, come to america. we will give you grants to make documentary films, and then blow us up. You will be better off than some of our own citizens, and then you will kill us all!!!!!!!!!

Quote: micahh777 said..
However I beleive that the islamic countries (for the most part) have no accountablitiy when it comes to human life. A man could rise to power in any Islmaic country and do the same thing Suddam did.

, I assume by "Islamic" countries you meant Arab countries (Again, and again: There is no Islamic country, currently).

Under the current oppressive dictatorships, no and yes.
No, no one can rise to power in an Arabic country, because the current dictators will definitely not allow that.
Yes, the dictators and their forces have been committing crimes long ago, even before I was born.

Quote: micah777 said..
The world has called on the U.S. to be involved like it is

No. The US started the war despite everyone else's (UN) refusal.

Quote: the Amerian people have never wanted that.

Maybe the majority never wanted that. The problem of the US is that the people mostly don't care about external affairs, and only care for internal well-fare, taxes, unemployment, …etc

Yet, your governors always wanted that.

Quote: micah777 said..
You must remeber that Isrealies lived in Palastine too with the Arabs. The land was theirs also, not just the Arabs.

No and No.
You've obviously not read the document www.cactus48.com/truth.html) – possibly due to time constraints – so you'd better do when you get the time.

Throughout history, those who lived in the Islamic then Arabic countries are Jews, not Israelis (By Israeli, I mean a citizen of the state of Israel. The state wasn't established before 1948, so there were no "Israelis")

The land wasn't theirs. Before 1948, it was the Muslims' land.

Quote: The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
The standard Zionist position is that they showed up in Palestine in the late 19th century to reclaim their ancestral homeland. Jews bought land and started building up the Jewish community there. They were met with increasingly violent opposition from the Palestinian
Arabs, presumably stemming from the Arabs' inherent anti-Semitism. The Zionists were then
forced to defend themselves and, in one form or another, this same situation continues up to
today.
The problem with this explanation is that it is simply not true, as the documentary evidence in
this booklet will show. What really happened was that the Zionist movement, from the
beginning, looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the indigenous Arab
population so that Israel could be a wholly Jewish state, or as much as was possible. Land bought
by the Jewish National Fund was held in the name of the Jewish people and could never be sold
or even leased back to Arabs (a situation which continues to the present).
The Arab community, as it became increasingly aware of the Zionists' intentions, strenuously
opposed further Jewish immigration and land buying because it posed a real and imminent
danger to the very existence of Arab society in Palestine. Because of this opposition, the entire
Zionist project never could have been realized without the military backing of the British. The
vast majority of the population of Palestine, by the way, had been Arabic since the seventh
century A.D. (Over 1200 years)
In short, Zionism was based on a faulty, colonialist world view that the rights of the indigenous
inhabitants didn't matter. The Arabs' opposition to Zionism wasn't based on anti-Semitism but
rather on a totally reasonable fear of the dispossession of their people.

Quote: micah777 said..
Just like in the 1940's the Muslim world fought over which Muslim nation would control Palastine and the result was a lack of a Arab nation in Palastine

Lack of Arab nation? What are you talking about exactly?
The land was always populated with people, but it was under the British mandate.

Quote: The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict
"Palestine became a predominately Arab and Islamic country by the end of the seventh century.
Almost immediately thereafter its boundaries and its characteristics - including its name in
Arabic, Filastin - became known to the entire Islamic world, as much for its fertility and beauty
as for its religious significance...In 1516, Palestine became a province of the Ottoman Empire,
but this made it no less fertile, no less Arab or Islamic...Sixty percent of the population was in
agriculture; the balance was divided between townspeople and a relatively small nomadic group.
All these people believed themselves to belong in a land called Palestine, despite their feelings
that they were also members of a large Arab nation...Despite the steady arrival in Palestine of
Jewish colonists after 1882, it is important to realize that not until the few weeks immediately
preceding the establishment of Israel in the spring of 1948 was there ever anything other than a
huge Arab majority. For example, the Jewish population in 1931 was 174,606 against a total of
1,033,314." Edward Said, "The Question of Palestine."

When did the "Arab" world fight over which "Arab" nation would control Palestine? Be more specific please.

Quote: micah777 said..
When it comes to you belief in the Koran, that is just what it is, a belief. Faith, you choose to believe and so when you disount the bible on you beliefs your just picking one in front of the other.

No. That's one of the annoying thoughts many people seem to have. Belief isn't just Blind Belief.
Everyone's responsible for what he believes, why he believes it. Belief can be and should be discussed.
God gave us minds to judge what's right and what's wrong.

Picking one in front of the other isn't that bad, because the reliable source usually wins. Our judging let us to that the bible isn't reliable. Many errors occurred in copying the bible throughout history, and it contains judgments and stories that are weird, to say the least.
We've yet to see a continuous list of narrators/copiers of the bible (the equivalent of lineage for humans) since Jesus, to verify that it's the original one.
(That could span another never-ending discussion. Feel free to start that if you like).

Quote: micah777 said..
without the west the Arab nations have no economy! You might control the oil but without the demand you have nothing. and the Muslim countries lack natural resources worth anything.

No, I'd revise a little geography/geology if I were you.
The Arab area is rich of natural resources, besides oil of course.

Gidian said what you meant in a more accurate way:

Quote: gidian9 said..
There is no large economy there but the oil and who buys the oil? America

There's a vast difference between natural resources and economy.

Indeed, the problem is that there are no industries making use of the resources. Mostly, the Arab countries export the raw materials, and then import them back in the form of manufactured items! (One of the good reasons they're 3rd world countries).
Additionally, there's the inefficiency.

However, when there's an Islamic country, there'll be proper usage of the resources, there will be maximum efficiency. It'll be no problem at all to stop pumping oil to anyone and face some difficulties, as long as it's worth it.

Additionally, there can be powerful economies without natural resources (Japan, China), or more precisely: there can be powerful economies where active people (the most important natural resource) are abundant.

Quote: bpopp said..
One of the things I have never understood about Islam, or any religion for that matter, is the importance that is put on trivial matters. If God/Allah hates violence, and Allah is all that matters, why would you fight over a worthless strip of desert. You can worhship Allah anywhere in the world, peacefully. Wouldn't that be better than killing each other in the streets like rabbid dogs? Wouldn't a good, loving, and just God honor that?

- Trivial?
I think the expression "worthless strip of desert" signifies a misunderstanding. The land of Palestine was never empty, it was always populated (As I said above, in my reply to micah777).
Of course, Israeli propaganda claimed that "The land of no people was given to the people with no land". That's false.

- Trivial? And how do you know it's trivial? That's what you think.
When I have what God says and what you say. Which one do you think I'll follow?
You're not all-knowing.

- Anyway, just in case you knew it's not empty (ignore this point if you didn't):
OK. Let's say a criminal enters your house, takes over 70% of it and claim it his. Would you "live peacefully" and "worship Allah" in the remaining 30%?
Ok, you did.
He decides that you have to share your wife with him, he rapes her.
You live peacefully, and worship Allah?
He decides that your children are too noisy, he kills one of them.
You live peacefully, and worship Allah?
He decides that you're annoying, he kills you.
Do you expect you'll be living peacefully in heaven, worshipping Allah?
Interesting..

- There's a large area of the US free, and I might add "worthless". Right? Deserts, mountains and such.
I'd like to know the possibility of establishing a small independent Islamic state on any area you think is "worthless" in the US. A desert or anything similar would be fine.
The state won't be over-populated or anything, we'll take the number of people that fits the area you give us best.
Would you please contact those in charge of such matters in the US?

- Fighting is a must. It's something you have no choice about:

Quote: Yusuf Ali's Koran translation
2:216. Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.

When you're life is endangered, you'll have to fight. When the lives of those who you love are endangered, you'll have to fight.

Quote: bpopp said..
Muslim Arabs already inhabit most of the region. Pick a country.. any country, and go there. Build more mosques if it's that important (it shouldn't be). I understand the importance of tradition and ritual, but by placing reverence on a strip of land merely because it's once where the great prophets used to live is a little sacriligious isn't it? After all, there is only one God/Allah. The ultimate sin in Islam is to place anything before Allah, is it not?

- As I just said, the problem here is that the land is populated by people. That's why we're placing reverence on the land. It's OUR LAND.

- I don't get what you mean by the last comment/question.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Actually you are wrong here. The peoples ignorance is not what brought him to power it was him killing off all his opposition. That and the violent Batth (spelling?) party that liked the ruthless way that he did business.

No. The people's ignorance is what brought him. If such a violent party as the Baath party arises in England, or France, would they be able to "kill all opposition" and rule? No, why? Because if the people aren't ignorant, they ARE the opposition (e.g. French resistance against Nazis).
It's kind of comical to kill all the citizens of a given country in order to rule, because you will find no one to rule then.

If the people weren't ignorant, they would've formed resistance cells, they would've fought, they would've disobeyed, they would've stopped everything that has happened from happening.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Don’t even try and speak of butchers.

That's a wrong argument here. *Assuming* that the Palestinian leader's a butcher, that doesn't mean anything. I've not chosen him, I actually hate him (read more below).

Wrong is wrong all the time, no matter how many people do it. Assuming Arafat's a butcher, that doesn't mean it's OK for Sharon to be a butcher, it just means that BOTH of them are butchers, and that both of them are wrong, and that we should stop BOTH of them. And that if we shut up, we're wrong, we're sharing them their crimes.

Additionally, assuming I myself were a butcher, that shouldn't stop you from listening to what I say. Maybe I'll point something wrong in you that you'd correct and become a better man.
Seek wisdom and knowledge whenever and wherever possible.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Sharon may very well be but he is no worse then the Palestinian leader

Wrong.
The Palestinian leader is a treacherous coward, he's kissing the feet of the US and Israel for peace when war is the only available option. I'm interested to read what false information you have about him.
When someone invades your country, kills your people, steals your land…you should fight.
Doing any other thing is treachery.

Quote: gidian9 said..
defiantly no worse then Saddam, and any number of other leaders in the Middle east.

Good. So?
Do you think I support or like those butchers?
Is it because I was born in a country where a local butcher (dictator) is doing the worst of deeds, I am to accept another "foreign" butcher cutting through my flesh?
I refuse both.

Quote: gidian9 said..
And the key term here is elected. The people made that choice for themselves, it was not thrust on them

No. It's not the key term.
I think you misunderstood me: By butcher, I was describing his behavior with non-Israelis. If some butchers elect a butcher to torture and kill others, they're wrong.
If he only terrorized his own people with their choice, well, it's their choice. But that'd never happen anywhere in the world, any time.

If you accept *any* kind of democracy - including one that crosses its limits, steals other people's land, …etc – then you're clearly wrong.
Don't *blindly* believe in democracy.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Ok I’m not to sure of the context here so correct me if I got this one wrong.
[…]
Ok now that I have taken a deep breath I would like to say that if it read your post here wrong then I am truly and deeply sorry for what I just said to you but I do still feel that way. But I am sorry if I got your post wrong here.

You got this one completely wrong, as will be shown.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Osama himself said that the attacks were because Americans set foot on the holy land. Let me say that again so that everyone really get it. SET FOOT ON THE HOLY LAND. Set foot on the F@*$ing holy land.

So?
You're not a kid or a baby, you should stop taking everything said by anyone for granted.
Osama said so, yes. So?
- Does that change the fact that we're against the terrorist attacks on 11th of September? No.
- Does that change the fact that he did so because of your actions (read more below)? No.
Extremists – or anyone psychologically unstable – react in wrong ways to external stimuls.

Is it just because one man does such a horrible action and claims that's according to Islam, you condemn Islam?
Well, you didn't condemn Christianity when Timothy McFay (or something similar) did the Oklahoma bombing.
You don't condemn Christianity when those extremist groups (I forgot the names, but I hope you'll get what I mean) committed terrorist acts, or committed mass suicide?

Quote: gidian9 said..
And why were we there? To get an aggressive dictator out of an innocent Arab country,

You still haven't woke up.
The US supported Saddam all the way, provided him with the chemical weapons, concealed his crimes against the Kurds. He was a strategic friend all the time.
He WAS A DICTATOR then, he wasn't a peace pigeon, for god's sake. Yet the US supported him, even after the crimes against the Kurds.

He even started that Kuwait invasion after taking a permission from the US to "modify the Iraqi-Kuwaiti borders by force" (Some believe he misunderstood the permission, and expanded it to a full invasion, while others believe it was explicitly a permission for the invasion.).

Why did the US "suddenly" choose to take him out, after all the crimes they've encouraged him to do?

Quote: gidian9 said..
Muslim I might add

No. He's an infidel.

Quote: gidian9 said..
And this is America’s fault how? Please explain this one to me.

I've already done this in the previous post, when I talked about how the US always supported Saddam. And I reinforced that here.

Quote: gidian9 said..
What happened to us is by no means our fault. It is the fault of Islam, or, to be more accurate, the ignorant, jealous, inflammatory, leftist, extremists, that pervert Islam and the fault of those that do nothing to stop them. Even against their own code. That’s whose fault it is

No.
What happened is the fault of:
1. The US government, for its continuous terrorism.
2. The deluded people of the US, who have no idea about what's happening outside their country (and even inside, the knowledge's limited: I recall that a poll was made several years ago about the name of the president of the US, and more than 70% didn't know), and that are being fooled to support every terrorist cause their government comes up with.
3. The ignorant, non-jelous, extremists that can't control their anger and go blasting innocent, ignorant people.

You started the reaction by pouring the acid blindly, some replied blindly (extremists), some haven't completely replied yet, but are doing it in a right way (Us. Why do you think I'm talking to you?).

Who said we're not doing anything to stop them? We're doing our best. I must notify that we're highly oppressed by the dictator governments for they fear that we awake the people. For many, many things, we work in secret, as far as we can.
In case you don't know, we – men and women, no difference - get tortured (electrocuted, whipped, burnt, beaten, …etc), killed, exiled. There are lots of things going under the surface.

Quote: gidian9 said..
And if you say that we support Israel so we are worthy of a cowardly attack, killing thousands of innocents like Sep. 11th then…

No. That's not what I said.
What I said is that "We totally disagree [to what the terrorists did], and are against such terrorist acts (== 11th September)[Against the bombings of 11th September]".

How can we agree to such a crime, killing thousands of ignorant people: men, women, old men, children…?

I also said that "The US is responsible for the terrorism that stroke it". How?

(A somewhat childish/silly example)
"Let's say a warrior (US) enters a city, kills some people (women, children, old people) and steals some stuff.
Now, this city has warriors AND rogues (extremists).
Those rogues, they hate what happened, they go directly to that warrior's city and kill his people (women, children, …etc), innocent people.

That's bad. The rogues are wrong, definitely. But the warrior's also wrong. Both the warriors and the rogues are terrorists.
The Warrior carries part of the responsibility."

Quote: then I say providing an attack like that on us is justification of nuking the hell out of anyone everyone that was involved no matter how small a part they may have played . The same thing but on a bigger scale. How can you say something so stupid and ignorant. What a warped view of reality you all must have to think this way. How can any human say such things. And if you do F@*$ you and find a shelter. I’m sure there will be more attack on America but mark my words, you think what we do now is terrible, you wait until we get hit again and we get even more pissed. More and more pissed with each gutless suicide attack, each worm ridden excuse for a man that sneaks in and bombs something. The vengeance we will reap will be stunning. So keep supporting terror, keep blaming the US for bringing it on ourselves and I say those of you who say that will have brought on yourselves the whirlwind of death you’ll get.

I urge you to consider what you just said. That's EXACTLY how a terrorist believes and acts (only replace the f-word and American-type slang with "The damn infidels", "the enemies of God" and similar).
How?

- You say "is justification of nuking the hell out of anyone everyone that was involved no matter how small a part they may have played":
The people of the US have played a role in what's happening here. With their ignorance, they allowed their governments to do numerous crimes without their knowledge.
If you think of the US as a man: The US people are the body, the government's the head/mind.
The end result is that man is an enemy, and has terrorized us for so long.

Is that justification to do the bombings of 11th September?
No.
Before war, we ***have to*** (from the Islamic rules) inform our enemies – if they don't know - of what wrong they've done, we must warn them. We can't just kill some ignorant people.

"But that's wrong, the US has never committed any terrorism. Ibn Ladin started it" you say. Well, and Ibn Ladin also says "But that's wrong, we've never started it. The US did, they came to our land and killed our people".
Regardless of who's right, both are terrorists, because both of them killed innocent and/or ignorant people.
It's exactly a mirrored situation, terrorists on both sides.

- "But mark my words": The same arrogance in all terrorists. Bah.

- "and I say those of you who say that will have brought on yourselves the whirlwind of death you’ll get": Same threatening. Remember "The US will never have peace until the last of the infidels gets out of the holy land"?

Here's your paragraph from Ibn Ladin's point of view (which DOESN'T AGREE with mine. Any slang/bad words you see are merely an (accurate) expectation of what such people would say about you)

"This one really enrages me. The infidels always attacked us because we're Muslims. Numerous presidents of the infidels always expressed their fear of Islam, their hatred to Islam. Nixon himself considered it the next big danger to replace communism.
And this is our fault, how? Please explain this one to me. But NO NO NO!!!!!!. What happened to us is by no means our fault. It is the fault of the US, or, to be more accurate, the ignorant, stupid, jealous, inflammatory, infidels and the fault of those that do nothing to stop them. Even against their own code. That’s whose fault it is. And if you say that we're Muslims, so we are worthy of cowardly attacks, killing thousands of innocents and of a damn Israeli invasion, then I say the US has to pay, damn you.
We'll shake their economy hard by bombing the 2 towers.
Many people will die, but that's justified!
Those damn American infidels have played a large role in the crimes happening here. That justifies sending them to hell. The same thing but on a smaller scale.
What? do you object? How can you be so stupid and ignorant, what warped view of reality you all must have to think this way? How can any human say such things.
And if you do [object], damn you and find yourself a shelter.
I’m sure there will be more attack on us, but MARK MY WORDS: You think what we do now is terrible, you wait until we get hit again and we get even more pissed. More and more pissed with each gutless attack/bombing/Israeli_terrorist_action, each worm ridden excuse for a man that drives a tank or a plane and bombs something. The vengeance we will reap will be stunning. So keep supporting terror, keep blaming us for bringing it on ourselves and I say those of you who say that will have brought on yourselves the whirlwind of death you’ll get.
The US will never have peace until the last of their infidels gets out of our land."

It's exactly your paragraph. There's no difference. Both of you believe in things that the other side considers false. Both of you take it to the next level, and don't care about the ignorant people killed in between.

Quote: gidian9 said..
But what does that matter. Each of these governments claims they are Islamic so that is what we see them as.

If you choose to act like a 9 years old boy, who believes everything being told to him, it's your choice.
Those who choose blindness aren't affected by any light.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Get rid of these governments, as per your book, so we can see a truly Islamic government. It is truly something that I would like to see.

We're working on it, truly.
But, maybe if you didn't support them the job would be easier?
- Saddam's government only prevailed because the US supported it, and was only destroyed when the US decided it's no longer of use.
Where do you think they're getting the weapons from?

Quote: gidian9 said..
Exactly. We are going to monopolize the reconstruction. And we should. Iraq obviously can’t do it. The UN only wants in so they can protect their own interests. And we did the work to free the Iraqi people.

You're still under the delusion that you're freeing the people.
No. You've always supported their slavery, via supporting Saddam, and via the sanctions after that.
Why did you support Saddam when he was enslaving the people, and eradicating the Kurds?

You shouldn't monopolize the reconstruction because you shouldn't have started the war in the 1st place.

Quote: gidian9 said..
of And your right they won’t leave before they are done. How stupid would that be. Do all that work to fix Iraq and leave before we are done so that it can get screwed up again. We are going to make it an Iraqi government by Iraqis. What difference does it make how long we are there we are not going to rule the country. And in response to your comment about Israel. We are doing our specific job. Building a new government in Iraq. One for the people. Once we accomplish this we will leave. As history has shown

History has always shown that the US does what's good for its and Israel's interests, no more no less.
If you leave, you'll leave treacherous governors that are loyal to you. We'll see.

Quote: gidian9 said..
We knew civilians would die but lets look as whose fault that is. If Saddam had cared about his people he would have moved his units out into the desert to fight us there, not camped them out near hospitals and orphanages.

Sure, Saddam's a butcher, he doesn't care for the lives of his people. And the US doesn't care too, you're butchers too.

Consider a hypothetical situation where Saddam's forces camped near AMERICAN/Israeli hospitals, orphanages and houses. Would you do the bombing? No.
Would you start a war that'd result in MASS deaths in your people? No.
Even if it was going to free them from Saddam's occupation? No.
You would've thought of another way. That's the solution. THINK.
At the highest priority, put "SECURE THE INNOCENT CIVILIAN LIVES", boldface, point size 9999999. That'd help.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Looting in Bagdad for example. Of course its our fault, that is perfectly logical. It can’t be the fault of Iraqi people that are doing the looting, no way. It can’t be the fault of the government that starved them and kept them poor, impossible

Interesting.
If the police stops working in the US, what would happen?
Crimes rates will tend to infinity! (Remember when the electricity was cut off for minutes – in New York, as far as I recall – how many crimes happened?)

Now, is it the cops' fault (for stopping work) or the people's fault (for stealing) or both?
I'll leave the answer to you.
…
Or, maybe I'd better write it down so that I'm not misunderstood, to be on the safe-side:
Thinking of the problem in a way similar to the one you did:
"It can't be the fault of the cops. No way. It's their right to stop working, absolutely. It's the people's fault, completely, 100%. What? Do you want the cops to actually work? Impossible."

Resorting to a better way of reasoning:
"It is the fault of the cops, and the people. The cops for not doing their job, and the people for stealing.
This makes sense".
…

If you think of the looting in a similar way, you'll reach a convincing answer.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Nope it has to be Americas fault cause they wont gun down looters as they run away with national artifacts. Of course we would be blamed if we did gun down those looters.

- I'm perplexed.
Is gunning people down the right way to stop burglary? Is that what the Cops do in the US? Gun-down thieves?
Naturally, people fear armed forces, THREATENING thieves usually works.

- So the American forces didn't gun-down the thieves because it's bad. How humane!
Yet the same forces didn't find it bad to gun-down Iraqis who protested against the American forces, and KILLED 10 of them.

- Recent Update: Now the US forces made the thieves put off their clothes, and then write "Haram" (forbidden) on their bodies, and make them walk NAKED in the streets.
Wow! Oh Freedom, Human Rights, democracy, I hug you with BIG arms. Weeeeeeeeeee.

Quote: gidian9 said..
And the air campaign that you so criticize saved countless civilian lives. When we bombed Bagdad we hit military and government structures only. Sure bombs go astray, piolets make errors, and things are bound to go wrong some of the time, no one is perfect

No one's perfect. Sure.
But when civilians are dying ALL the time, then that's not an error. It's not convincing.
Don't tell me your hitting military and government structures only. Some bombs have a destructive range of 1km.

To better visualize, walk in the street, find a block/building that's adjacent to a government structure. Stand there. Now imagine, if one of those cute bombs falls on the neighboring building, what would happen?
Of course, there's no 100% accuracy. So my cute little bomb can go astray a little, hitting the area around the building, that's acceptable!
What would happen to you?
What about the noise? It alone can kill many weak-hearted people.

Again, would you have chosen such an air campaign if Saddam's forces were in American cities?

Quote: gidian9 said..
Back to the main point though. Had we not softened up the republic guard then the resistance we faced going into Bagdad with troops would have been far more stiff.

What resistance? You entered Baghdad through a form of treachery that's not yet known (and it's not quite known whether you're involved or not).
Either Saddam and his companions fled cowardly (possible), or there was some kind of dirty-deal going under the surface.
In either case, the bombings wouldn't have affected the forces to the extent of DISAPPEARING (if it'd affect them at all).

Quote: gidian9 said..
Even carpet bombing would have a smaller body count than marching into an occupied city with troops and tanks.

I disagree.
If you march into an occupied city with troops, with preserving civilian life a high priority, there'd be a huge body count indeed, in the attacking forces.

Quote: gidian9 said..
I would like to see what sources you used for this one because it is blatantly wrong

Noam Chomsky's "The US and the acts of aggression" as I've said. He cited Amnon Capiliok – An Israeli journalist – about his visit to Vietnam in 1988.

Quote: gidian9 said..
because they dropped them at pretty much the same time

No. There was around 4 days between them. Do you want to convince me – and yourself – that Japan wouldn't have surrendered after the 1st one, if told there's more?

Bombing one of those bombs in a desert would've caused Japan to surrender. Japan had no idea there was such a bomb before it was bombed.

Quote: gidian9 said..
And even with the huge body count of The Bomb. It was less then it would have been with an invasion of Japan. That and we saved countless American lives. Yes it is more important to us to save American lives then anyone else

There's a huge difference between killing 70,000 soldiers and killing 70,000 civilians.
Killing 70,000 soldiers is acceptable because this is a war. It's sad that so many people will die, but still, they're soldiers.

Killing 70,000 civilians is unjustifiable given that you had the forces to engage in an ordinary war.

What about the radiation? The bomb destroyed and polluted all forms of life, till now. What about those who are born handi-capped/mutated?

This is yet another extension for the terrorist thinking.
Why are you so mad at Ibn Ladin for killing your civilians then, if you've done the same thing (on around a 23x scale)?
Ibn Ladin harmed your economy a lot, wasting the lives of (six?) thousands of your people.
Well, he too can say that "Doing the same effect on your economy in another way would've wasted far more lives. We've saved a lot of American lives!"

About saving the American lives: Sure.
But when you save American lives by killing innocent ones that you can avoid killing, you're wrong.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Just as it would be for you if you Egypt went to war. You want less Egyptians to die then the enemy

- My loyalty – as a Muslim - is mainly to Islam, and partly to Egypt – as a country where Muslims live. If Egypt fights Islam, I'll stand against it.

- Exactly, I'd want less Muslims to die than the "ENEMY SOLDIERS". I wouldn’t want the Muslims to go tearing apart people who don't participate in the war.
Prophet Muhammad – PPBUH – said: "March in the name of Allah, with Allah, and on the religion of Allah's messenger. Don't kill an old man (gaffer?), or a child, or a woman, don't cross your limits. Pack your booty (?), do right, do good/well for god loves those who do good".

Quote: gidian9 said..
That and we never claimed to be righteous but you should take a look at the track record of Japan in that war and you will see the horrendous atrocities they committed when they invaded China before you play them and the poor innocent country that America bullied.

- I never said Japan was a righteous country. What I'm saying is that there are principles. When a war starts, a side (if not both) is on the wrong side. But that doesn't mean we commit sin/do_wrong by killing their civilians and/or innocent people (kids, women, old men, …etc)

- The horrendous atrocities committed don't justify committing similar actions. Otherwise, we'd have the right – if we followed your logic, thank God we don't (Ibn Ladin does) – to do to your people as what the US have done to us.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Oh and we apologised for the A bomb but we still have heard nothing for Pearl Harbor. Just to let you know

Apologize?
As far as I know your government has never apologized, so if you can find me a link or something I'd be grateful.

Anyway, do you mean something like:
"Oh. I'm sorry for the ~118,000 people we've killed. We didn't mean it, we just wanted to end the war. I hope you're no longer mad at us or anything. So now we're friends, right?"

Would you accept the apology of someone who kills your dad, mom, brother, sister, grandma, grandpa, aunt, cousin, neighbor, and polluted your land, and sterilized you and thousands of your people, and then caused your offspring to be mutated?

Please answer me.

By the way: In general, you're not responsible for what your ancestors did, UNLESS you agree to what they did, in which case no apology would do.
The right thing to do is to disagree, and make sure it never happens again (and that's something you don't do).

Quote: gidian9 said..
Well we are on the same side with Israel, we did fight ourselves.... it sucked

I didn't mean fight yourselves. I meant disarm yourselves.
You give yourself the right to produce, export, possess AND USE mass destruction weapons. You obviously believe that you're above the law, or more precisely, that you're the law!!
And then you expect others to be happy with it. Well they won't.
Some of them are terrorists. Their reaction is bad.

Quote: gidian9 said..
we gave Iraq 12 years to comply while Korea hasn’t even had a year yet

Yes sure. You tortured the people for 12 years because of your treacherous agent Saddam.
Shall we expect similar torment for the Korean people?

You only disarm those who aren't on your side, so it's basically a "With me or against me" scenario.
So don't give me the nonsense about freedom and justice then, you wanted to dominate the world, you did, and now you're having fun with it.

Quote: gidian9 said..
Where do you think this stereotype came from?

From the minds of sick, dishonest people that are fooling the world into thinking that the Muslims and Arabs are savages, treacherous, care for nothing but sex, ….etc

The problem is that such Arabs are the minority, the majority are kind *ignorant* people (By ignorant, I mean "not aware of right and wrong, and what they should do").

Quote: gidian9 said..
Keep in mind that we also got their country back for them at the cost of American blood, and gave it right back to them.
And in the second part here the money was never repaid and why should we give away free money anyway. Would you give me free money to rebuild my fence, or come and do it for me for free?

What I meant is that:
- The US entered the war because it had to. The US was somewhat neutral before the massacre of Pearl Harbor, only after that it actually moved.
- After the war, the US didn't help the other countries as "charity". It only did so because it was profitable/good_for_its_interests

What I said was in response to what you've said earlier like:
- "First in that the United States doesn’t practice genocide. In fact we have sacrificed out troops around the world to stop it."
- "We spent untold amount of money rebuilding Japan and Germany after WWII. Money that was ment as a loan but we’ll never see a penny of it."
- "Countless times we have gone around the world to aid opressed peoples in far off lands that ment very little to us. And we have never asked anything in return."

I meant to show that the US:
- Didn't sacrifice its troops around the world to stop genocide. It did so when it was useful to its interests, or when its own security is endangered (Pearl harbor)
- Took many things in return for the money they spent.

Quote: gidian9 said..
You keep trying to portray the US for not helping enough in some cases but you condemn us for doing it in others. Like the statement you made about China. How is it our responsibility to end their famine. We are giving them aid. How much is Egypt going to give them. In fact what other countries are going to give them help at all? My guess would be not many. So where is the greater evil here. Those who do not completely fix other countries problems or those that do nothing at all? But see here as in other places in both your statements you contradict yourself. You say you don’t want America to get involved with other countries and then you say we are evil because we don’t give enough.

Once again, you misunderstood what I said. Taking things out of context will only result in misunderstanding.

First, let me paste that statement about china here:
"To further clarify: In 1950, Dean Atchison – The minister of external affairs – agreed that "In case the famine in China develops/grows, the US will have to offer some nutrition aids. But not what's enough to end the famine, just what's enough to score a point in the psychological war" (Steven Shalom: Z-Magazine, October 1990)"

I thought – when I said that statement earlier – that the following points would be clear:
- What Dean is saying, is that they'll offer "what's enough to score a point in the psychological war".
You see, that's what I quoted Dean for.
Of course, as you said, the US is free to offer as much as it likes and that'd be good. But let me add: As long as it's offering it to help, not to score some points.
No one should (and would) have blamed you if chose not to give them at all, in favor of your citizens' needs. I mean, it's your money and you have the right to decide whether to contribute or not.

- The quote was intended to counter what you said about "how charitable the US is". I wanted to show you that it isn't, that it does things only when of use/gain to it (which is definitely not "our" definition of charity. If you have some other definition, tell me).

I suppose it's clear now that I never said you're evil because "you don't give enough", so there's no contradiction.

Concerning this: " see here as in other places in both your statements you contradict yourself."
I believe I haven't. Please point out every point that you think I did – if you've not done that already – so that we can discuss it. That's crucial to our discussion, don't ignore what I said, saying to yourself that "he contradicts himself". Please tell me, please correct me, that's my right given that you've accepted to talk with me.

Quote: gidian9 said..
America is going to look after her own interests just as any other country would that is how it is for anyone. I don’t see how you can call us bad for doing so

Of course, I agree to that. America HAS TO look after her own interests. But not by crossing her limits, and harming others.
Isn't that the "freedom" she claims she represents/follows?

When she crosses her limits (and she did), she's bad.

Quote: gidian9 said..
I’m not saying that America is perfect. We are far far far from that.

I've never demanded that you'd be perfect. No one – excluding prophets – is perfect.
Wrong/Mistakes happen. But the best way for them to happen is to happen intention-less.

If someone knocks me over with a car by mistake, I can forgive him. He didn't mean it.
But when someone does it on purpose, that's another story.

That's why we're against the US. To us, it's the 2nd case.

Quote: gidian9 said..
But we are also far far better than most countries our there. I would say than all countries but I cant make that claim. What has the Middle east done for the world in recent times. What has the far east done? Australia? Russia? France? The answer is nothing, absolutely nothing

How do you measure these contributions?
I mean, from the scientific point of view, there's a lot of research going everywhere in the world.
HUGE advances in every field come from the minds of non-American people.
The contribution by the English, the German and the French alone is simply HUGE in every branch of science.

So, saying "nothing, absolutely nothing" is completely inaccurate.

On the political level, or world security, I'd say that Australia and the far east are loads better than the US, and the UK.
At least, they've not religiously supported Israel, they haven't supported our terrorist dictators, they've not invaded us.

Quote: gidian9 said..
So when it comes down to the end of things, this hate for us is nonsense jealousy, nothing more. I wish someone could make me believe otherwise but so far no one has.

I advise you not to think of it that way.

Try walking in my shoes: What am I jealous of, exactly? (While reading the following, bear in mind that's MY view)
"You live in mayhem, chaos, absolute disorder. You're committing all the sins I hate, you're violating every command God made.

The US is blood-thirsty, she's terrorizing the world. She keeps developing and throwing its state-of-the-art destructive weapons all the time. I'd never want to be in your place.
She's supporting a state that's established on terrorist roots, that aims at expanding from the Nile to the Euphrates, that aims to kill my people, that aims to eradicate my people."

After the terrorist attacks of 11th September, a poll was done here in Egypt to see what people thought of that. About 95% expressed their refusal of such attacks and their sorrow for the innocent victims that died.

Jelousy? No way.

Quote: gidian9 said..
I wish someone could make me believe otherwise but so far no one has

I did my best to show you that the US never cared for nothing but its interests.
We'll see what this ends to.

Quote: gidian9 said..
When that happens, they are given the same freedoms and liberties we all have.

Not exactly.

Quote: gidian9 said..
There are thousands upon thousands of the world's people flocking to this country every day to become part of this great place.

There are
- Those who think that the US is a great place and want to become part of it.
- Those who know it's not, and just want to learn and go back to where they've come from.
- Those who know it's not, and try to wake the US people up, and show them the right.
- Those who know it's not, and are planning for something evil.

Quote: gidian9 said..
We want to give freedom to everyone even at the cost of loosing our security. That shows the truth of our intentions and inherant goodness to me.

That wasn't very clear in your actions in the recent 70 years.

Quote: von said..
Yes, come to america. we will give you grants to make documentary films, and then blow us up. You will be better off than some of our own citizens, and then you will kill us all!!!!!!!!!

I assume that this is a joke. If it matters to you, I didn't like it.

Quote: Dawn said..
Picking one in front of the other isn't that bad, because the reliable source usually wins.

How long does that take? We're going on 3000+ years and we're no closer to the truth (as far as I can see). Millions.. h*ll.. _billions_ are dead and forgotten because someone believed that their God was the only "right" God and anyone who disagrees would just be better off dead. If they're right, maybe some of the deaths were somehow justified. If not, they were just murder in god's (without a capital G) name.

After asking people how they know they've picked the right religion (to the exclusion of all the others), I've been told that maybe Satan created false religions for the sole purpose of confusing people into believing the wrong one. Maybe?.. but maybe Satan is just using religion to encourage us to hate and kill in God's name. Woudn't that just be the ultimate slap in the face to God/Allah?

Quote: When I have what God says and what you say. Which one do you think I'll follow? ..OK. Let's say a criminal enters your house, takes over 70% of it and claim it his. Would you "live peacefully" and "worship Allah" in the remaining 30%?

Ahh, but how do you know what God really wants from you? How do you know that you just happened to be born into the "right" religion (lucky you!)? If you had been born in a predominantly Christian culture, you would have been asked (by God) to forgive the sins that are committed against you. If a man asks for your coat (or land), you give it to him and then some. If a man slaps you, you turn the other cheek.

I admit, I find this philosophy very emasculating, but I don't question the beauty and power of it. If you haven't already (I'm sure you have), read a little bit about Ghandi. He used it to do extraordinary things. Ignore the part about him getting shot to death.

Quote: That's EXACTLY how a terrorist believes and acts (only replace the f-word and American-type slang with "The damn infidels", "the enemies of God" and similar).

Very true. _If_ America ever gets to that point, we will be no better than "them".

Quote: "You live in mayhem, chaos, absolute disorder. You're committing all the sins I hate, you're violating every command God made.

Yeah, and "you" (arabs, egyptians,whomever) are just the epitomy of grace. Please. Do a search for "Peace and Arabs" on google and it will respond, "are you f'in crazy?!"

From a macro perspective, all people suck. All we can do is be the best people we can be and try and ignore (or ideally forgive) the bad stuff.

Quote: There are- Those who think that the US is a great place and want to become part of it. ... Those who know it's not, and are planning for something evil.

This could be said of just about anything, couldn't it? I'm not sure what you are implying?

Quote: What resistance? You entered Baghdad through a form of treachery that's not yet known (and it's not quite known whether you're involved or not).

Nooooo. Tell me people haven't started with the conspiracy theories already! What "form of treachery" could we possibly have committed (aside from the obvious bombs and missels)?! On one hand, you supposedly concede that Saddam was a bad man, and yet you can't believe that the people (including his soldiers) were actually happy to see him gone? That's what started all this in the first place. If the arabs had just admitted he was a piece of sh*t and threwn him out on his ass, none of this would have been necessary. Instead, they stand behind him because he is an arab.

There's so much to respond to, but I have to go to work Thanks for the response Dawn. More later.

Thanks a lot for the response.
It's just that my finals are approaching, and time's becoming shorter
So, bear with me for another couple of days.

Quote: How long does that take? We're going on 3000+ years and we're no closer to the truth (as far as I can see)

- People will always be different, and there'll always be right and wrong. So the 3000+ years are worthless.
This goes on until doomsday.

- Who said we're no closer to the truth? There are people converting from religion to religion everyday. Those people believe they've already reached the truth. Some are correct, some are mistaken. But the point is, some have already reached the truth.

Quote: . Millions.. h*ll.. _billions_ are dead and forgotten because someone believed that their God was the only "right" God and anyone who disagrees would just be better off dead. If they're right, maybe some of the deaths were somehow justified. If not, they were just murder in god's (without a capital G) name.

So?
There'll always be right and wrong. Do your best to do what you think is right. Others will too.
I'm not saying that "killing anyone who disagrees" is justified, I'm saying that it'll happen, whether you want it or not. Just like any other bad thing in the world.

Quote: After asking people how they know they've picked the right religion (to the exclusion of all the others), I've been told that maybe Satan created false religions for the sole purpose of confusing people into believing the wrong one. Maybe?.. but maybe Satan is just using religion to encourage us to hate and kill in God's name. Woudn't that just be the ultimate slap in the face to God/Allah?

- Concerning how people know they've picked the right religion, that's discussed below.

- I don't see why "Satan created false religions…" should contradict that "Satan is just using religion…".
Both are correct in the sense that "Satan uses false religions to encourage…"

Quote: Ahh, but how do you know what God really wants from you? How do you know that you just happened to be born into the "right" religion (lucky you!)

- You don't just "accept" that you're – supposedly – born into the "right" religion. Research. Read what others have to say about your religion, judge what they say, judge your religion.
That's why people convert from one religion to another, they research.

Of the zillion religions out there, there are few who claim having an evidence about their validity, and even fewer that have the "possibility" of being true in their claim (ex: Worshipping cows can be trivially rejected).
Generally, the 3 *heavenly* religions; Islam, Christianity, and Judaism are the ones worth discussing. If you think otherwise, tell me.

This is a huge topic to speak of, so I can't start on writing stuff before I know your current position/religion. It seems to me that you're an atheist or agnostic.

Anyway, for some general stuff and examples:
Each of these 3 religions has a creed. By judging the creed, you can judge the validity.
Islam and Judaism have a Sharia (law/code). By judging them, you can judge the validity.
Each of the 3 religions has principles and ethics. By judging them, you can judge the validity.

Each of these 3 religions has a "holy" book of some sort. Consequently, one of the methods of judging their validity would be to judge the book.

As for the bible, I'm not saying something new when I say:
1) It's not the original one (i.e it contains a lot of verses that are not from God):
For the old testament, for ex:
(Reverse-translated from Arabic, so the reference "titles" may not be exactly correct)

Quote: The American Encyclopedia (1959 ed, pretty old I know, but this stuff doesn't change with time)
We've not received any copy with the handwriting of the original writer of the old testament. The text we have has been copied by several generations of copiers.

And we have lots of evidence that the copiers have changed – on purpose or by mistake – in the documents and books while copying.

Changing by mistake happened when they misread […], or missed copying some words and sometimes whole paragraphs.

Changing on purpose was practiced when they changed whole paragraphs, because they thought it was written in a wrong way, in the form that reached them. They also removed words and paragraphcs, added clarifying paragraphs, and sometimes added "margin text" to the original text.

Quote: The 2nd Vatican council/academy meeting (I don't know the English word) that was held 1962 – 1965, the 4th "Masconi" (????? This is a guess, I couldn't find the translation of the Arabic word anywhere) document, the 4th hapter, page 53
The verses of the old testament allows all to know who God is, and who Man is,[…]. But these verses contain faults and delusions, yet it has a sign of godly education

(Forgive my translation )

I have more quotes, but they're unnecessary.

2) Contains a lot of errors (ex: counting, summation) and contradictions:
I don't want to go into detail as long as we don't need it, so as an overview there are:
- Logically-rejected stories about Prophets, and how they were pioneers in sin.
- Counting erors
- Summation errors
- Name errors (placing wrong names)
- Contradictions with itself
- Errors that are logically revealed
- Porn writing

As said before, I don't want to go into detail before knowing your exact position. So for some general stuff about the Quran:
A very good document that puts things better than I'll do is Here (PDF). Please read it, it's only 14 pages of text (without the references) and you can go through them fast if you like. Just don't reply before reading them, I'll be waiting

A little quote from there (about one of the scientific miracles of the Quran):

Quote: – The Qur’anic description of the development of the human embryo
The Qur’an (23:12-14) describes the development of the embryo at a microscopic level inside
the womb in the following manner: “Man We did fashion from a quintessence of clay. Then We
placed him as (a drop of) seminal fluid in a place of rest firmly fixed. Then We fashioned the
seminal fluid into a leech-like thing that clings (the word “alaq” is sometimes incorrectly
translated as a blood-clot). Then We fashioned that leech-like thing that clings into a chewedlike
lump. Then We fashioned the chewed-like lump into bones and We clothed the bones
with flesh. Then We developed out of it another creature. So hallowed be Allah, the Best of
Artisans”; Q.96:1-2: “...who fashioned man from a leech-like thing that clings”; and Q.22:5: “We
fashioned you out of dust, then out of a drop of fluid, then out of a leech-like thing that clings,
then out of a morsel of flesh - partly formed and partly unformed...” The incredible accuracy
of these descriptions of the various stages of embryonic development are confirmed in Keith
Moore and T.V.N. Presaud's 5th edition textbook “The Developing Human” and others

Quote: If you had been born in a predominantly Christian culture, you would have been asked (by God) to forgive the sins that are committed against you. If a man asks for your coat (or land), you give it to him and then some. If a man slaps you, you turn the other cheek.

- If I'd been born in a Christian culture, I should've researched my religion and logically conclude whether it's valid or not.

- Judging with my mind, that's one good reason not to become a Christian. The generalization of this rule is illogical. What we believe is that messengers and prophets prior to Muhammad – PPBUT – were sent to a "specific" nation to fix a "specific" illness in them. i.e. their message was limited in the terms of both "time" and "place".

When would it be right to apply the rule above?
Think of a hot-blooded slasher that you're trying to fix. You teach him how to control himself, you tell him "never ever fight back"… That could make sense. i.e. When there's a situation where someone will either "fight blindly" or "forgive blindly", it's better to forgive blindly, as a training.

If Jesus – PPBUH - really did say that then he said to "certain" people, and what he said can never be generalized.

Quote: I admit, I find this philosophy very emasculating, but I don't question the beauty and power of it. If you haven't already (I'm sure you have), read a little bit about Ghandi. He used it to do extraordinary things. Ignore the part about him getting shot to death.

Well, of course Gandhi did amazing things with it. However, this method won't work in different cases.
What Gandhi stood against was occupation and colonization. For the British, the the Indians were needed to work so that they – the British - can reap the outcome. So stopping work is resistance.
That wouldn't have worked against the Mongols (? Those of Hulako and Genghis Khan) who killed people for pleasure, and were only stopped by the Egyptian Muslims.
That wouldn't have worked against the crusades.
That won't work against the Israeli invasion that aims to control the land between the river Nile and the Euphrates.

Anyway, this philosophy didn't prevent the British from committing infinite crimes against his people. Crimes that they didn't pay for.
I'd say that one could do more amazing stuff without the same philosophy. The key point is using the appropriate strategy for the appropriate time.

Note: I'm not saying Gandhi should've fought back. I've read about him in the past, but when it comes to issuing an important decision/judgment such as "fighting" or not, one has to carefully study the circumstances, before deciding it's right to fight or not. I don't precisely remember the details of his people, their readiness for war, their arming, the possibility of forming resistance cells, …etc

As I said before, Prophet Muhammad – PPBUH – and the early Muslims lived in 13 years under oppression and torture. They never fought back then when "fighting back" wasn't appropriate. However, when it was time – after 13 years, they fought courageously.

What I'm saying is that the "don't-fight-back" strategy has its suitable time. If used when it's not time, it might yield good results, but using the "right" strategy would've yield much better results.

Quote: Very true. _If_ America ever gets to that point, we will be no better than "them".

From what I see, it's got to that point a long time ago. What happened to Japan is an example.

Quote: Yeah, and "you" (Arabs, Egyptians, whomever) are just the epitomy of grace. Please. Do a search for "Peace and Arabs" on google and it will respond, "are you f'in crazy?!"

- When I spoke of chaos and disorder, I wasn't speaking of war.

- I think I've said a million times before that I'm not proud of/satisfied with the current Arabs. I believe I've stated more than once that I belong to Islam, and that they're currently against it (or not with it).

- Peace? If you're speaking of Israel, then WAR with Israel is grace. If you think we're going to tolerate any invaders, you're mistaken. War is inevitable, today, tomorrow, a thousand years from now, whatever.
The current dictators do want peace, because they don't care about anything other than staying in rule. We don't. What I know, what my children will know is that there's part of the Islamic land under occupation, and that our fellow Muslims are being killed everyday and crushed out of their land.
If you don't want us to fight, fine, get the Israelis out of our land then. Give them some "worthless" land in your country.

Quote: From a macro perspective, all people suck. All we can do is be the best people we can be and try and ignore (or ideally forgive) the bad stuff.

Well, currently there's no nation – from our point of view – that lives the "right" way.
However, you'd better replace "ignore" with "gently try to fix".

Quote: This could be said of just about anything, couldn't it? I'm not sure what you are implying?

Nothing. He was saying that people are flocking to America because it's a great place. I confirmed that to many people, it's not.

Quote: Nooooo. Tell me people haven't started with the conspiracy theories already! What "form of treachery" could we possibly have committed (aside from the obvious bombs and missels)?!

When I spoke of treachery, I was speaking about Saddam, not the US.
I said that either:
1. He escaped: This is plain treachery, given that he refused to leave in the 1st place before the war started.
And I said this is quite possible.
2. There was some kind of a dirty deal between the coalition and Saddam (to let him leave/escape): This is treachery by Saddam too.

This is pretty clear, because the absence of any forces in Baghdad is puzzling. The coalition forces didn't face any resistance at all (compare that to the resistance they faced in Al-Basra for example).

Quote: On one hand, you supposedly concede that Saddam was a bad man, and yet you can't believe that the people (including his soldiers) were actually happy to see him gone?

No. My point was that he *was gone*. That's the treachery I've been talking about.

Quote: That's what started all this in the first place. If the arabs had just admitted he was a piece of sh*t and threwn him out on his ass, none of this would have been necessary. Instead, they stand behind him because he is an arab

The Arab governments – as well as the US - are surely mistaken for supporting Saddam in the past and not throwing him out.
As to why they stood behind him now, it's because everyone knows this war isn't for freeing Iraq, even if that's not what they publicly announced.

As to why this started, why don't you tell me?
The US launched the attack without any convincing reason.
Terrorism? They always supported Saddam, and he was a terrorist all the time.
Revenge for 11th of September? Where's the evidence?
Freeing the people? They never cared about them