Bush's wars to cost 1 trillion

[bewitched]

"name callers like you"? What names are you referring to?

If you admit it is not a "big threat", then why defend exorbitant expenditures in it's pursuit?

If you admit it is not a "big threat", then why defend the loss of civil liberties and the use of torture in it's pursuit?

Islam is a big threat. Iraq is a start in detering the threat. not the best choice but a defensive move. but we are also in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and other places in dar ul Islam. and it's expensive to be there.

are your personal civil liberties lost and are you so inconvenienced by that? please explain your circumstances.

the enemy will not refrain from torture. well just today a little boy was hung in Afghanistan for ratting out a group who was planting a bomb. they have also been know to castrate others and let them bleed out. and you might remember those marines in Baghdad, beaten, beheaded, dragged through the streets, charred and then boobie trapped so their bodies couldn't be collected to bring home.
this enemy doesn't use Just War like we do. this is dar ul Harb. deceit, trickery, lies, beheading, grizzly murder of people like Nick Berg and catholic school girls, snippers in the DC beltway, college student driving an SUV into other students, 911 using our planes, and a 7 phase plan that will peak around 2010- 2013.

so if you want to sit back and think people are fearmongers (name) or making up this **** for some weird government control conspiracy or something... that's your choice.

 

[Popeye]

Islam is a big threat. Iraq is a start in detering the threat. not the best choice but a defensive move. but we are also in Kuwait, Afghanistan, and other places in dar ul Islam. and it's expensive to be there.

are your personal civil liberties lost and are you so inconvenienced by that? please explain your circumstances.

the enemy will not refrain from torture. well just today a little boy was hung in Afghanistan for ratting out a group who was planting a bomb. they have also been know to castrate others and let them bleed out. and you might remember those marines in Baghdad, beaten, beheaded, dragged through the streets, charred and then boobie trapped so their bodies couldn't be collected to bring home.
this enemy doesn't use Just War like we do. this is dar ul Harb. deceit, trickery, lies, beheading, grizzly murder of people like Nick Berg and catholic school girls, snippers in the DC beltway, college student driving an SUV into other students, 911 using our planes, and a 7 phase plan that will peak around 2010- 2013.

so if you want to sit back and think people are fearmongers (name) or making up this **** for some weird government control conspiracy or something... that's your choice.

Islam is a threat, or radical Islam? I'm sure you don't mean the entire religion , as a whole, is a threat. Though, as I'm sure you're aware, there are some fundamentalist Christians who do. Are you one of those?

Soldiers would not have suffered harm in Baghdad, if Iraq had not been attacked under the false premise of WMD being there. Blame that on Bush. As for other incidents that you rattled off, since when did we start taking the lead from terrorists on how to treat enemies?

Boy, the head fear monger, the vice fear monger, and all the fear mongering media outlets, such as Fox News, sure have got you scared don't they?

You know during WWII, Britain was bombed almost everyday, losing thousands of their citizens. Yet you don't see them willing to sacrifice their principals out of fear.

First it was fear of the communists, now it's fear of the terrorists.You can can come out from underneath the bed now, the mean old terrorists are a lot weaker than you think.

 

[bewitched]

Islam is a threat, or radical Islam? I'm sure you don't mean the entire religion , as a whole, is a threat. Though, as I'm sure you're aware, there are some fundamentalist Christians who do. Are you one of those?

Soldiers would not have suffered harm in Baghdad, if Iraq had not been attacked under the false premise of WMD being there. Blame that on Bush. As for other incidents that you rattled off, since when did we start taking the lead from terrorists on how to treat enemies?

Boy, the head fear monger, the vice fear monger, and all the fear mongering media outlets, such as Fox News, sure have got you scared don't they?

You know during WWII, Britain was bombed almost everyday, losing thousands of their citizens. Yet you don't see them willing to sacrifice their principals out of fear.

First it was fear of the communists, now it's fear of the terrorists.You can can come out from underneath the bed now, the mean old terrorists are a lot weaker than you think.

there is no way to find a distinction of radical and regular/moderate Islam. but the theology is the drive behind the force of terrorism. of all the OIC members they all share the same ideology, so you can do the math, I already have.
silly, I'm not scared. maybe you are. I could give a $hit about the so called fearmongers that apparently have your attention. personally I don't find them that important.
if you think terrorist don't exist that's your choice. I know better.

 

[KingClovis]

God bless our troops, but we have to find a way out of

Iraq. It's wrecking lives and our economy. Dunno how we can leave, though. Very tricky situation. Afghanistan we should fight hard, to the bitter end.

 

[bewitched]

Iraq. It's wrecking lives and our economy. Dunno how we can leave, though. Very tricky situation. Afghanistan we should fight hard, to the bitter end.

Islam doesn't recognize the borders of Afghanistan and Iraq. in dar ul Islam there is one place. which means that the world consists of the Islam, the West, and China. if we can understand this then we can understand why it's going to cost us so much to preserve ourselves and freedom.

 

[vyo476]

there is no way to find a distinction of radical and regular/moderate Islam.

The same can be said for Christianity. The problem is that most theologies (especially the Abrahamic ones) can be interpreted however you want - and Islam is easily interpreted as violent and agressive. However, this does require an interpretation, which implies that the religion is not at the core of the issue (or at the very least, not the only thing at the core of the issue).

but the theology is the drive behind the force of terrorism.

Incomplete reasoning. Islamic terrorism has become a force in the modern world do to sociological, historical, and cultural factors. Ignoring the first two to focus on the last will only perpetuate the problem, and will, in fact, probably make it worse.

of all the OIC members they all share the same ideology, so you can do the math, I already have.

Hitler and Stalin were both authoritarians. I suppose they were good buddies, hmm?

silly, I'm not scared.

Not scared? You ought to be. Me, I'm plenty scared. Fear, after all, is our most basic and (arguably) most powerful survival mechanism. Without it, the subconscious would lose focus on survival and would instead focus on some biproduct of the other basic emotions: anger, sadness, happiness, and disgust.

Which of these, then, do you feel?

maybe you are.

I would hope so.

I could give a $hit about the so called fearmongers that apparently have your attention. personally I don't find them that important.

Any particular reason for this, or are you just flexing some bravado?

if you think terrorist don't exist that's your choice. I know better.

It is not whether terrorists exist, but rather what their motivations and capabilities are that is in question.

 

[bewitched]

Islam is easily interpreted as violent and agressive. However, this does require an interpretation, which implies that the religion is not at the core of the issue (or at the very least, not the only thing at the core of the issue).
.

it doesn't matter how we interpret it, it matters how they interpret it.
as for fear... I'm still not scared. if the risks are optimized then we don't have to be reactive. unfortunately we are at a defined risk level and know the threats, very close to reactive. reactive is an action, not an emotion.

 

[vyo476]

it doesn't matter how we interpret it, it matters how they interpret it.

And why they interpret it the way they do.

as for fear... I'm still not scared. if the risks are optimized then we don't have to be reactive. unfortunately we are at a defined risk level and know the threats, very close to reactive. reactive is an action, not an emotion.

Ascribing reactionary logic to an emotional state (or the lack of an emotional state) doesn't make sense. However, if you're comfortable with this, don't let me stop you.

 

[bewitched]

And why they interpret it the way they do.
.

exactly. and if we only see the western interpretation then we can't understand the battle they are fighting.
I would be glad to tell you all about Islam as I know it from the inside.

 

[vyo476]

exactly. and if we only see the western interpretation then we can't understand the battle they are fighting.
I would be glad to tell you all about Islam as I know it from the inside.

I'm sure you'd like to share with me your interpretation.

There's a lot more going on than just "the Western interpretation" and "the Middle Eastern interpretation." What you have here is a standard conflict of values - a conflict between societal and personal values. Each person's value set is unique. Many peoples' value sets run against the values of their society. While societal pressure has been enough to suppress personal values throughout much of history, in the case of the Middle East, things are different. Instead of pressuring people to join the army or marry a certain person (actions which are viewed by society and have societal consequences on the individual) most acts of terrorism are designed to end with the death of the terrorist, meaning that there are no societal consequences for them. The decision to become a terrorist, then, has as much or more to do with the personal value set of the individual - and while that value set can be and is influenced by society's values, it is also influenced just as strongly by other factors.

In other words, for the first time in history the whole really is lesser than the sum of its parts. The prevailing societal attitude matters little; the sum of each individuals' attitudes matters most.

 

[bewitched]

I'm sure you'd like to share with me your interpretation.

There's a lot more going on than just "the Western interpretation" and "the Middle Eastern interpretation." What you have here is a standard conflict of values - a conflict between societal and personal values. Each person's value set is unique. Many peoples' value sets run against the values of their society. While societal pressure has been enough to suppress personal values throughout much of history, in the case of the Middle East, things are different. Instead of pressuring people to join the army or marry a certain person (actions which are viewed by society and have societal consequences on the individual) most acts of terrorism are designed to end with the death of the terrorist, meaning that there are no societal consequences for them. The decision to become a terrorist, then, has as much or more to do with the personal value set of the individual - and while that value set can be and is influenced by society's values, it is also influenced just as strongly by other factors.

In other words, for the first time in history the whole really is lesser than the sum of its parts. The prevailing societal attitude matters little; the sum of each individuals' attitudes matters most.

you are still seeing Islam from a Western point of view and saying things about it that aren't even close to true.
societal consequences by becoming a terrorist? they are martyrs, heroes. and that's not a decision they make, it's an obligation to the theology.
there are no individual values in Islam. they believe in the sum of Islam.

Islam isn't like Christianity. there is no pluralism. and Islam follows sharia law so society, government, culture are all one. and in this place non-muslims are lesser pigs and dogs.

 

[vyo476]

you are still seeing Islam from a Western point of view and saying things about it that aren't even close to true.

I am viewing Islam from a sociological point of view - a viewpoint which is outside concerns of where I'm from or where my personal opinions come from. Although sociology was first developed in the West, it requires a non-societal examination of society. The study itself is scientific, not cultural.

societal consequences by becoming a terrorist? they are martyrs, heroes.

They are also dead and no longer a part of society.

and that's not a decision they make, it's an obligation to the theology.

They do not have free will? Somehow they are not human?

there are no individual values in Islam. they believe in the sum of Islam.

Islam means literally individual submission to the will of Allah.

And even if the religion did not involve individuality, humanity intrinsicly does.

Islam isn't like Christianity. there is no pluralism. and Islam follows sharia law so society, government, culture are all one. and in this place non-muslims are lesser pigs and dogs.

Not all of Islam follows Sharia law. There are around seven-eight million Muslims who live in the United States that follow its laws.

 

[vyo476]

Bewitched, you seem to think that you are viewing Islam through non-Western (or more accurately, through Middle Eastern) terms. Tell me what your opinion of Islam is, then, and then please justify it, also in non-Western terms.

 

[bewitched]

Bewitched, you seem to think that you are viewing Islam through non-Western (or more accurately, through Middle Eastern) terms. Tell me what your opinion of Islam is, then, and then please justify it, also in non-Western terms.

I have no opinion. I work in counter-terrorism education.

 

[bewitched]

I am viewing Islam from a sociological point of view - a viewpoint which is outside concerns of where I'm from or where my personal opinions come from. Although sociology was first developed in the West, it requires a non-societal examination of society. The study itself is scientific, not cultural.



They are also dead and no longer a part of society.



They do not have free will? Somehow they are not human?



Islam means literally individual submission to the will of Allah.

And even if the religion did not involve individuality, humanity intrinsicly does.



Not all of Islam follows Sharia law. There are around seven-eight million Muslims who live in the United States that follow its laws.

martyrs are certainly part of the society and culture and theology.
free will is government controlled in Islam.
muslims in the US regard Sharia law over US law in many cases. and that is a growing danger to the DHS. go to Dearborn MI and tell me Sharia law doesn't exist there. how about that couple in Atlanta that did the traditional genital mutilation on their daughter? many other instances. be aware.