Forum rules
This General Forum is for general discussions from daily chitchat to more serious discussions among Somalinet Forums members. Please do not use it as your Personal Message center (PM). If you want to contact a particular person or a group of people, please use the PM feature. If you want to contact the moderators, pls PM them. If you insist leaving a public message for the mods or other members, it will be deleted.
[quote="Viking"]Mad Mac, The difference between you and I is that; I'm against ALL forms of violence against innocent civilians while you support state-terrorism. You are paid and live your life to perpetrate these evil acts. Since your "morals" are dictated to you by the military, you have lost the sense of distinguishing betwen right and wrong. This is why you have a difficulty accepting the non-state actors, you feel that the state has a monopoly on violence and killing.[/quote] ------------------------------------------------------------------
Viking That's my point you f-king knucklehead - the state DOES have a monopoly on violence and killing. And when you step away from that and rationalize that individuals can have a piece of that monopoly, then very bad things happen. Now, don't get me wrong, I don't think states should kill with abandon either. But I'm not naive enough to believe in the panacea of pacifism. I respect those who do. But I personally believe a state that is not prepared to use violence to protect itself is not long for this world.
At least with the state we have a mechanism through which we can identify those responsible. The Israeli people can hold Sharon responsible. The American people can hold Bush responsible. That they did not draw the same conclusions you did doesn't mean that there was no mechanism. You just aren't happy with the results. But if the Ummah legitimizes violence everytime they aren't happy with a result, there will be endless violence. Again, with results that you don't like, since the west can exercise a tremendous amount of violence.
Non-state violence is what has gotten us here. And it's Islamic non-state violence that is bringing this to a head.
Kamal I can't say I agree with you on the point of causes. The Ummah is not pissed because of encroachment of Bushes policies. They were pissed long before Bush was president. The planning for 9-11 began during the Clinton presidency. No, Iraq aggravated things, but the rage was there. Muslims are raging against their condition and don't know how to be self-critical. They can't look at their way of life and draw the conclusion that it has flaws that are preventing it from competing. So instead they lash out at anything and everything. Many Muslims tolerate or encourage non-state violence. And it has spun out of control Until the Ummah rejects ALL FORMS OF NON-STATE VIOLENCE it won't end. I suspect it will end when something cataclysmic happens and the US uses nuclear weapons in response. I believe this day will come, but I hope I am wrong and the process can be contained.
Mad Mac, Who is crazy here, you or me? I say killing of innocent people is wrong (no matter who carries it out), you say killing of innocent people can only be carried out by a state.
Viking I didn't say that. I said the state has a monopoly on political violence. What am I speaking Russian here?
Intel you wrote:
"mad maci got couple questions for u , who do u think trained Bin ladin? who do u think supported Saddam during the Iran war?do we have more terrorist now or back then ? answer these questions to your self IF U CAN i know the result"
To which I respond. No one "trained" Bin Laden. He got his first experience as warfare as a freelancer in the 80s in Afghanistan. He was not trained by the CIA. He in fact rejected a need for training by kufr elements. By all accounts he was responsibly courageous in combat and at the tactical level was a quick study. UBL does not lack for charisma or intelligence although in his "global Jihad" he has made several miscalculations.
The US supported Saddam during the war with Iran under the principal the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
We have more terrorists now than we did in the 80s. We certainly are seeing far more violence directed from the Islamic community against the west than in the 80s and this has resulted in more vilence from the west directed against the Islamic community.
quote MM "But I personally believe a state that is not prepared to use violence to protect itself is not long for this world.
At least with the state we have a mechanism through which we can identify those responsible. The Israeli people can hold Sharon responsible. The American people can hold Bush responsible. That they did not draw the same conclusions you did doesn't mean that there was no mechanism. You just aren't happy with the results."
Agreed in theory, but in all reality, what will be the outcome of "holding Sharon/Bush etc responsible??" Will they be brought before the Hague. Unlikely. Who held Reagan responsible for the Central American/Iran Arms scandal, and the toll IT took ? No one. In fact, Ollie North was made an American Folk Hero for his stand. But you can bet Saddam is gonna get 99 years, as will EVERY one in G Bay and A.G who is convicted. Yes, in theory you're right, but unfortunately, those who have the monopoly won't be held as accountable as are those who DON'T have the monopoly. It's the double standard that rubs the wrong way.
Mad Mac, Who is crazy here, you or me? I say killing of innocent people is wrong (no matter who carries it out), you say killing of innocent people can only be carried out by a state. -----------------------------------------
[quote="MAD MAC"]Viking I didn't say that. I said the state has a monopoly on political violence. What am I speaking Russian here? ------------------------------------
typical bloody americans! you would probably make more sense if you spoke focking russian...
[quote="MAD MAC"]Viking I didn't say that. I said the state has a monopoly on political violence. What am I speaking Russian here?
Intel you wrote:
"mad maci got couple questions for u , who do u think trained Bin ladin? who do u think supported Saddam during the Iran war?do we have more terrorist now or back then ? answer these questions to your self IF U CAN i know the result"
To which I respond. No one "trained" Bin Laden. He got his first experience as warfare as a freelancer in the 80s in Afghanistan. He was not trained by the CIA. He in fact rejected a need for training by kufr elements. By all accounts he was responsibly courageous in combat and at the tactical level was a quick study. UBL does not lack for charisma or intelligence although in his "global Jihad" he has made several miscalculations.
The US supported Saddam during the war with Iran under the principal the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
We have more terrorists now than we did in the 80s. We certainly are seeing far more violence directed from the Islamic community against the west than in the 80s and this has resulted in more vilence from the west directed against the Islamic community.[/quote]
mad mac
dont tell me that bu llsht ob is not trained by the CIA everyone knows that
and the enemy of my name theory is changed now into you became
[quote="MAD MAC"]Viking I didn't say that. I said the state has a monopoly on political violence. What am I speaking Russian here? [/quote]
Who gave them the right to kill people on basis of politics? If the American and British people allow their elected leaders to kill and mame other people in other countries then they should not complain when the violence comes to theri backyards. As much as a loathe terrorism, I'm not naive to think that the states have more rights in killing for a skewed political ideology.
"Who gave them the right to kill people on basis of politics? If the American and British people allow their elected leaders to kill and mame other people in other countries then they should not complain when the violence comes to theri backyards. As much as a loathe terrorism, I'm not naive to think that the states have more rights in killing for a skewed political ideology."
Have you lost your marbles? Where the hell do you get off comparing conventional warfare on the behalf of nation states, a fact of history since dawn of civilisation and deliberate targeting of civilians by terrorists - amorphus, shadowy and high on religious intoxicants funatics?
Nation states wage war on other nations, targeting their instruments of state power like: military, communication, logistics, power, energy...Civilian casualties are inevitable outcome and are NOT primary targets. The goal being to weaken or destroy the other side all together.
Terrorists of your faith's extract, on the other hand, deliberately and purposefully kill and mame CIVILIANS. Not military/security targets, not economic targets but civilians going about thier daily business. Women, children, old and the frail. Merciless, coold-blooded slaughtering of civilians.
You make false analogy of moral equivalncy between the two. There ISN'T one. One purposefully attacks civilians and the other doesn't. You have not put forth a convincing case for why terrorists acts like that of London bombings are justified by the actions of the US in Iraq. If you have one, please state it. I'm interested to know the muslim rational for condoning these acts.
And on the issue this being tit-for-tat episode, as result of US/British involvement in Iraq and other muslim countries - BALONEY!
This would only be reasonable arguement if its premise, which is that the terrorists have rational reasons, strategic plans and ultimate end-goals to their methods, was true. It isn't.
For one, terrorists acts are random - hardly reflecting purposeful method behind them. Second, there seems to be NO calculated or reasoned out plan/s for fighting the West other than randomly attacking civilians. Third, the terrorist's greivances are amalgamations of alleged 'muslim injustices', geographically ranging from Iraq to palastine to Chechnya. These alleged 'muslim injustices' are nothing but your run-of-the-mill local conflicts, requiring local resolutions except for the fact muslims are involved. By basing their actions on all hosts of unrelated conflicts they deem transgress muslim sensibilities, reveals not honest and legit grievance but emotional lash-out. Which is what it is.
========================================
We live in a world full of injustices. People live in abject poverty, are discriminated against and their rulers are satrps for world powers. Yet you don't see africans, asians and other ppl's of this world blowing themselves up for percieved injustices. Only muslims. Only a muslim would walk into a train full of his fellow countrymen and blow himself up.
Lets face it, this whole suicide bombings madness is Islamic problem. It calls for muslims to get their head out of the sand and do something before this madness engulfs the entire world. Whether religiously justified or not is contestable. But it is the inconstestable fact that muslims are blowing themselves up in the name of Islam and Allah. They do it, as they would say, for all muslims.
We can take a leave from Intifada 2 of where this may go, and fingers crossed, hope it will go. In the last year or half saw dramatic reduction of suicide bombings in Isreal. Many reasons are attributed to this development. The barrier fence, aggressive and intrusive counter terrorism campaign by Isreal are all sited. But most experts give most credit to the morphed opinion of palastinians, as shown by poll and after poll in the last a year and half, of their 'shaheens'.
When Intifada 2 started the 'shaheens' were exalted into national hereo status and held in high steem among cross section of palastinian population. As result suicide bombings were frequent scene. But as the Intifada 2 progressed, it became clear that it was cataclysmic failure in achieving its goal, and the palastinians came to realise its fact. Ultimately rejecting suicide bombing. They, rightly, concluded its better to end armed uprising as its effects were unbearable and counterproductive to their national aspirations.
Today this is true. Repeated polls show well over two thirds of palastinians calling for end to suicide bombings and the intifada 2 and tilt towards peace negotiation with Isreal. Its not entirely coincidental that as palastinian opinion of suicide bombings showed a dip, it was accompanied by a lull in suicide bombings. The lesson here is useful in that it shows a practical solution this suicide bombing phenomenon. And it involves muslims.
Terrorists are parasites. They need a host, a community to live off. And this host is the muslim community. In most instances, the aid muslim community gives to terrorists comes about unknowlingly and unwittingly. These terrorists are difficult to tell apart from the average peaceful muslim becuz the keep low profile, act like the average muslim and don't make too much noise to attract attention. Therefore it is impossible or extremely difficult to weed them out from larger sea of muslims.
The only way they can be isolated and corned is if muslims, ALL muslims, make it clear that violence against civilians under any circumstances is unacceptable and unislamic. Only then will the terrorist realise that he has no legit, be it moral or religious, justification for his actions. And not only that but he is in fact fighting the whole world and not just the 'kafirs'. As long as muslims are making excuses with 'ifs' and 'buts' and drawing analogies, these terrorists will think they have some support.
The solution is to isolate the terrorists. There is tent of the civilised world, where killing civilians is abhored, included are majority of muslims and the terrorists have no place in it.
It means that if you are a state then any action you do is justified as long as you can get away with it.
Lets stop bieng naive here, We live in a world where there is no right and wrong and only power counts.
So if you feel like massacring some civilians , stealing land, opression, ethnic cleansing its cool, as long as you are strong enough to prevent interferance in your affairs.
Since the muslim world is so fucced up, beyond repair, and that includes every single country, those seeking venegence naturally ignore the state and act outside of it.
All this is disasterous ofcourse, but these terrorists are not freedom fighters , are not fighting for islam. They are weak pathetic, with no sense of direction or morals. They attack innocent defencless civilians because that is all they can do.
The little old lady on a bus is not the enemy of islam, its the leaders of the muslim countries who deserve to be blown to bits, but then again these are blind and weak people.
Viking Again, rationalization after rationalization. The two previous posters are quite correct. State on state violence is here to stay. It may be managed, it may be decreased with effort. But it is an historical norm.
Non-state violence has historically occurred as well. And generally, the state that has been subjected to it has responded with extreme violence, often destroying the offending population (this is what is going to happen to the Arabs if they don't get their act together, and when it does, I will be here to remind you that you share in the blame for it reaching this pitch).
As I recall, when complaining that the Iraqi regular forces were failing to even attempt at following the laws of land warfare, you responded with "when defending your homeland, the only rule is, there are no rules." To which I responded that would be bad for the Iraqi people, because soldiers subjected to constant harrassing attacks from a civilian population tend to target that population (and justifiably so). So now, here we are, some two years after the beginning of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration showing plenty of patience, and lots and lots of Iraqis being killed, mostly by other Iraqis. When the state collapsed the Iraqi people should have rolled over. That was in their own interests. Now if they continue this insurgency until the next US election, we might very well pull out prematurely. If we do, Iraq will descend into a full blown civil war. And it will be people who think like you who will be at fault. And again, I will be here to remind you of it.
Now personally, I don't like the f-king Arabs anyway. I hope they all gleefully kill each other. Their culture, the politics, are scum. Fuck 'em. Let them kil each other. The US should bar any Arabs from entering the US. We buy their oil, and that's it. They embargo us, we invade and take their oil and destroy their cities. No mr Nice guy. You fuckers are lucky I am not the president. You'd be toast. I'm fed up trying to see everyone explain reason to idiots who have a political culture and religion that wouldn't pass muster with a tribe of barbary apes.
"Non-state violence has historically occurred as well. And generally, the state that has been subjected to it has responded with extreme violence, often destroying the offending population (this is what is going to happen to the Arabs if they don't get their act together, and when it does, I will be here to remind you that you share in the blame for it reaching this pitch). "
{ this is what is happening to YOU right now so stop taking the Jew aproach point and blaming others for something u do}
bad for the Iraqi people, because soldiers subjected to constant harrassing attacks from a civilian population tend to target that population (and justifiably so). So now, here we are, some two years after the beginning of the war in Iraq, the Bush administration showing plenty of patience, and lots and lots of Iraqis being killed, mostly by other Iraqis. When the state collapsed the Iraqi people should have rolled over. That was in their own interests. Now if they continue this insurgency until the next US election, we might very well pull out prematurely. If we do, Iraq will descend into a full blown civil war. And it will be people who think like you who will be at fault. And again, I will be here to remind you of it.
{patience? please shemale , you and I both know that the US and West should have never went there , let me explain to you cuz you are blind and brainwashed by your leaders how hypocrit the west is
when saddam invated kuwait 1990 and kickout the fagg king and his people you guys went there to "help" kuwait a decate later You are doing the same thing invating some country using the WMP excuse and when you get killed you blame every muslim around the world ?????
"Now personally, I don't like the **** Arabs anyway. I hope they all gleefully kill each other. Their culture, the politics, are scum. **** 'em. Let them kil each other. The US should bar any Arabs from entering the US. We buy their oil, and that's it. They embargo us, we invade and take their oil and destroy their cities. No mr Nice guy. You **** are lucky I am not the president. You'd be toast. I'm fed up trying to see everyone explain reason to idiots who have a political culture and religion that wouldn't pass muster with a tribe of barbary apes."
{ouch shemale one i can tell you is that you will never ever be a president you dont have that brains ( well nor bush but he has a dck next to him) so enjoy your shemale friend and life untill you get killed by ARAB
---->"When the state collapsed the Iraqi people should have rolled over. That was in their own interests."<----
Mad Mac, This pretty much sums you up. Do you remember what Ho Chi Minh said to the French and Americans who used that kind of tone? He said "You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." The insurgents are saying pretty much the same thing, but they are killing the pawns deployed by the occupiers (and sadly a huge number of civilians).
I do not support the actions of the insurgents because they kill more innocent people everyday. American soldiers are legitimate targets which should be the primary aim for the insurgents but Iraqis seem to do most of the patrolling, especially in the danger zones, while the occupying force mostly hide in the 'fortified' green zone. I do understand though why the insurgents target Iraqi force who are there to help USA rob Iraq of its natural resources.
"Mad Mac, This pretty much sums you up. Do you remember what Ho Chi Minh said to the French and Americans who used that kind of tone? He said "You can kill ten of my men for every one I kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and I will win." The insurgents are saying pretty much the same thing, but they are killing the pawns deployed by the occupiers (and sadly a huge number of civilians).
I do not support the actions of the insurgents because they kill more innocent people everyday. American soldiers are legitimate targets which should be the primary aim for the insurgents but Iraqis seem to do most of the patrolling, especially in the danger zones, while the occupying force mostly hide in the 'fortified' green zone. I do understand though why the insurgents target Iraqi force who are there to help USA rob Iraq of its natural resources."
First of all, the Iraqi insurgents are no Vietnminh. So let's not pretend they are.
Secondly, The insurgents are not fighting for Iraq or to protect it's resources. So let's not pretend that's part of the agenda either.
And thirdly, they are not only targetting Iraqi military, but also markets, mosques, anywhere there are crowds. They are scum, but you fuckers are too stubborn to admit it.
Now, you and I both agree the war was a bad idea. We're always agreed on that point. But once it was launched, the Iraqis should have used it as an opportunity. There were, after all, plenty of advantages in it for them. Instead, they have pissed that away over petty power politics and the result, IF WE FAIL (which I don't think we will) will be a totally fucked up Iraq for years to come.
You want to see the best outcome for the Iraqis? It comes through us. And you f-king know it.
