Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Don't divide people? With all the religious warfare going on how is it Relgions don't divide? Isn't gaining power over others the core of many of the popular religions?
Thousands of innocent people died under Suddam. Imo intervention should have happened a lot sooner.
what if the west had attacked a decent leader based on completely false information? I feel that is where we are going with Iran, indeed this war against saddam has set a dangerous precedent.
-Well, if that's the case why not also intervene in the other 50-some countries in the world that had regimes just as bad during Saddam's reign? Why not Uganda under Idi Amin? Why not Zaire under Mobutu? Why not Nigeria under Abacha?
It's the core of humanity. Regard the following figures: Alexander of Macedon, Genghis Khan, Tamurlane, Julius Caesar, Attila the Hun, Napoleon, Stalin, Hitler, Hirohito -- NONE of them, not one, was acting because of a religious mandate -- and these are the most brutal conquerors in history.
My own opinion is that Islam didn't give rise to 9/11. It was basically testosterone.
If another 9/11 happened now with suitcase bombs, the global economy would flat out collapse. What sort of suffering would follow that for... Americans, Africans, Chinese, South Americans, Middle Easterners, Europeans, in short.. everybody?
The best way to fortify poor countries against this dependency on the economics of the developed world is to build up their basic health / social / economic infrastructure over time.
And I doubt another 9/11-type attack would collapse the economy. It would be no worse than the failure of Lehman Bros was. The financial institutions would still exist -- and we made it through the original 9/11 with a stunned but sound economy (and don't forget it had been in recession from the tech bubble at the time).
^ actually he wasnt, he infact asked saudi arabia to lead a jihad against saddam to stop him attacking saudi soil.
The saudis never replied and instead made deals with america regarding its defence.
Saddam had been brutalising his people for decades, as soon as a gun barrel pointed towards the oil reserves of kuwait and saudi arabia, he suddenly became a bad man, and the americans intervened, once the oil was safe, they disappeared leaving him to continue the repression.
I find it difficult to accept that after 20+ years of knowing that he is killing his own people, one day, the american government woke up and said, "we have to help those poor iraqies!" It was probably more like, "oil is getting expensive, its now worth taking him on to take iraqi oil, lets conjure up some BS and invade" and thats exactly what they did, and no one denies this now, it is now a fact that the WMD myth was completely fake. In the UK the guy who wrote the report is now dead, he apparently killed himself.
A couple of years after 9/11 I was watching TV and saw a former CIA employee (sorry, don't remember the name) who said that about a month after 9/11, the CIA had received information from a Pakastani source that there was a suitcase bomb in NYC. They received independent confirmation of that from a Russian source complete with details that were disturbing, especially in light of what had just happened. George Tenant brought this to the president's attention. For obvious reasons it wasn't announced. It was assumed that if there was one in NYC, Chicago and Los Angeles might also be targets. Within a year it was decided that no suitcase bomb existed based on the premise that if there had been one, it would have been used sooner rather than later. It surprised me at the time that more wasn't made of this information. What made me lean toward believing it was two things: 1) it made the attack on Iraq seem more understandable, and 2) I've heard Bill Clinton allude to the possibility of suitcase bomb attacks.
Can I just say one thing about that? If another 9/11 happened now with suitcase bombs, the global economy would flat out collapse. What sort of suffering would follow that for... Americans, Africans, Chinese, South Americans, Middle Easterners, Europeans, in short.. everybody? I will submit that not many countries outside Sierra Leone have experienced the kind of suffering that would ensue. The poorest countries would be hit the most severely. That's why attacking NYC is different.
I think you have oversimplified. Bin Laden and his type have very little support, where as their is a general feeling of sympathy towards the Palestinians, Iraqies, Chechens, Kashmiris, Lebanese, Iran etc etc who have been wronged over the years.
Bin Laden is just using the genuine sympathy to try and justify his wacko plans.
John Brown is an excellent example. Of course his case is different because we all take for granted these days that slavery was an abomination, and we DO often judge actions on the merit of the underlying cause.
But take the people who murder abortion providers -- should they be assumed to represent Christians any less than Mohammed Atta represented Muslims?
But bombing abortion clinics should be as abominable to sane pro-life people as violent ecoterrorism is to environmentalists.
I don't know of any Christian leaders who condone bombing of clinics
But Osama bin Laden isn't a "Muslim leader". He's the head of a militia.