 | | Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | (...) You can turn that the other way around: even Saddam is clever enough to know he cannot rely in such a lunatic as OBL. Saddam has managed to keep power for so long due to a careful choice of allies; he is well aware OBL cannot be controlled! (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: What about the first? —John Neal
|
| | | | | (...) <snip> (...) It's not that I have a problem with religious fanatics, it's what those fanatics *do*. I would venture that 90% of the world's terrorism is perpetrated by Muslim fanatics. (...) The US has *no* intention of destroying Iraq, but (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: <snip> (...) or 10 years and he'll die of natural causes--no war needed. <snip> (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The problem is what he will do in the mean time. If he just kept to himself the problem would be moot. JOHN (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | (...) Historical circumstance. In the past others undertook the majority of what can now be called terrorist actions; in the future, others (non-muslim, that is) will; it's a never ending and unavoidable cycle. More: it is not dependent on religions (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | (...) I'd "venture" 99% of the terrorism the UK has suffered has been perpetrated people who'd call themselves "Christians". However, Christianity is not what drives them. – it’s greed, nationalism and to a lesser extent some form of political (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) The difference is that 99.5% of *Christians* would condemn their actions. How many in the Arab world condemn Extremist Muslims' actions? The silence is deafening. (...) So why bring Christianity into the discussion in the first place? (...) (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —David Koudys
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oh my goodness--I actually agree with John! Eep! (1) Dave K (1) all except the attack on 9-11. Whereas I don't think that American foreign policy is the *only* reason for 9-11, the slip-shod American foreign policy has negatively impacted (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | (...) How do you know that? Christianity never impeded war or terrorist actions in the past; they happen despite it, sometimes because of it. It's void to say 99.5% of Christians condemn such violence. Why didn't you write 99.5% of the people in (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) I'll make my point below. (...) I don't watch CNN-- heck, I don't watch network news either because as you correctly point out, they are agenda-driven. (...) I agree, and here is my point. *Sensible*, rational Arabs need to SPEAK OUT against (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes: Why bring Islam? (...) Problem is, you're not going to. Not saying there aren't lots of repressive regimes in the non Muslim world, mind you, but there sure aren't very many NON repressive ones in the (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Hard to argue with that. Yet I call you attention to the fact that the Algerian dicatorship is on the anti-islamist side, making it a whole more complicated matter. (...) If you were getting paid, wouldn't it be "tribute" to the ruling empire? (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Buying allegiance is not restricted to the "Muslim world". Right now I expect Bush is horse-trading all over. His case is that strong. (...) Part of the problem is that the USA did not pay what it said it would last time around. Bush should (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | (...) Worse: even when the agenda is not there visibly, all we get is a snapshot of a detail and not the panoramic view. (...) And again I pick my comparison: what happened to dissidents in the 1500's? they went to the stake. The modern day (...) (21 years ago, 19-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —John Neal
|
| | | | | | (...) Agreed. <snip> (...) Okay, but what about the vast Muslim population in free societies such as the US, or even, say, France? (...) Okay, I see your point. But realize that even within Christianity itself there are *vast* differences, to the (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | (...) Have you even looked? From Aug '98 [ie before the USA woke up to terrorism]: Fight terrorism, but not through Draconian laws (URL) Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said the British Muslim community has no sympathy whatsoever for any act of (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | | | (...) Regarding the US, I have no insight. Regarding France, two things take place: a) the vast majority of the muslim citizens has a feeling of distance towards politics (to which a number of explanations concurr); b) the extremists who do exist (...) (21 years ago, 20-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: What about the first? —David Koudys
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes: <snip> (...) Now this is a serious thought-- Is the best solution to have the American Flag flying over the streets in Bagdad? In Israel? Have the U.S. take over these countries and say, "Well, now (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: What about the first? —Pedro Silva
|
| | | | (...) Every single foreign power that has taken over the Middle Eastern countries has left without glory... ever since the Assyrians at least, ending in the British so far. So no, I don't think the US should do that. What would anyone gain? The (...) (21 years ago, 18-Feb-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
