Agreed.

I also think that living without knowing how many people want to hurt America does not make it safer then knowing.

When the area finally stabalizes so that there are some powers in the middle east that will maintain order without US troops the entire world will be safer.

chris you don't think that maybe we are a hell of a lot less safer due to the fact we pissed up the people who already hated us to begin with?
recruiters of the terrorist organizations are using this jihad on america and the war as a main way or recruiting new extremists. i mean just about it.I mean maybe I'm wrong but this is like a black man burning a KKK members Ford, you can expect nothing but a worse backlash.

i honesty doubt that there will be any form of a stable government there that doesnt include a dictator who is willing to make examples of those who refuse to obey.

well the fact they were already pissed off enough to want to attack us but unable to really mount an offence then, and now they are just as pissed, and still unable to mount an offence..... like i said man, in the long run things dont really change. it takes ALOT more than 5, 10, even 15 years of complete change, which has to be done on both sides of the ball, for you to see any kind of stable effects. so no, i dont really feel that we are any safer or more in harms way than say 5 years ago. think what happened 5 years ago before bush had a chance to "fuck everything up" when the terrorists were basically retaliating to something clinton, bush senior, regan, etc. have been doing over there over the past 30 years. to think bush jr. single handedly made them more pissed at us is just really stretching to hate someone.

to try and debate how safe we are we must define safe by actions or intentions.. both of which i dont think has changed at all, MAYBE shifted a little, but changed in the overall picture... i think not.

I think this answers the question CD5passion raised. Chris you took the words out of my mouth.

Well I think Chris has a point about King Bush II not being totally responsible and bringing the actions of Clinton, King Bush I, and Reagan into the picture. But then again, only Bush II actively provoked terrorists and muslims on TV. For instance, a statement like "you're either with us or with the terrorists" is the kind of stupid I can't even begin to comprehend. It was at that point that even moderate muslims all over the world went "well...we're not with you, so...". Provocation and ultimatums don't make for safer environments. They're essentially fighting words and Bush has spent enough time in Mexico Jr. (Texas) to know a thing or two about fighting words. The solution is simple...if you want to stop people from having a desire to attack you, stop pissing them off intentionally (yeah...I'm talking to you Pope Benedict).

by pissing them off you mean telling them that if they hate us and want to attack us then we're gonna have issues? i mean i know bush should not have given an ultamatum like that, but he was also making a point that if you want to attack america then expect us to attack you back... he should have given that as an ultamatum and not what he actually said, because you know thats what he ment... is fiji with us.. not exactly, but they arnt with them. what about luxenburg or greenland. we arnt trying to divide this world into 2 groups, and i think most countries understand that, but if you hate us and wana cause us harm, we will cause you harm back

There's one thing I don't understand...does anyone actually buy the whole "they hate us for our freedom" thing? If you think about it, it's pretty illogical. I mean...by showing they're willing to piss off the world's biggest superpower, they've already shown a proclivity towards violence. If they don't have a problem with violence and are jealous of freedom, they could save themselves a lot of hassle and just violently overthrow their own government and live however they wanted. Seems like it'd be a whole lot easier and it'd save them the problem of being pursued by a massive army. Seems like it's a ridiculously simplistic (and wrong) answer to a complex question that has a dozen better alternative answers.

And Chris...I'm not really saying Bush's line of thought is wrong. I'm saying he should never be allowed to speak in public. Ever. Get someone with diplomatic skills to do the talking as to avoid the confusion and potential pissing off of other countries. I for one don't want to be represented on a world stage by a wanna-be cowboy who got a little carried away after watching The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly.

well seeing as they are religious extremist who believe in the opposite of what we stand for, then we go over to try and get the dictator or whatever out of power, which gives their country free religion, or at least we try to preach that, they do get pissed. and illogical? they are willing to strap up explosives and kill themselves, i think that throws the logic argument out the window.

Steve I think you are missing a major point in all of this. These extreem groups believe we are infidels and their reiligous views tell them they must remove us. A 'Holy War' on secular societies is a huge and you have seemed to completely over looked that.

They what people like you and I dead. Their leaders preach hate towards the rest of the world. They want us gone. THis is war. Bush didn't need to say it for it to be. It was this way far before 9/11 and far before his speach telling people to pick aside.

Rob...you're forgetting that the whole idea of a holy war (jihad) was relatively unknown to these people until WE reintroduced it in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion in the early 80's. Yes, it's part of their religion, but it had been largely forgotten until we showed up. And really, among any religious fanatics, hate is a symptom. It doesn't matter who they are. There are radical Christians who hate. Radical Jews who hate. Radical muslims who hate. Let's not pretend like this one denomination is any different from the others. There are plenty of moderate muslims who don't pick up weapons and go off to fight. You won't hear about them on the news, but they're out there. Shit...people here kill doctors for performing abortions. Aside from the body count, they're no different than islamic terrorists when it comes down to ideology.

And Chris...I can find a lot of flaws in your statement. First of all, not everyone we're fighting is a religious extremist. Many are simply pissed off that we're there and are fighting back. No single American can say they wouldn't do the same if the tables were turned (just watch the movie Red Dawn). Secondly, to many middle eastern countries control their population by religion. Israel, our best "ally" (sarcasm definitely intended) won't let anyone live there who isn't a jew. Jews can't marry non-jews there. Now tell me that's any more pragmatic than what happens in other countries we've got our eye on. As for preaching, who the fuck are we to even suggest we know what's right? This country's fucked 8 ways from Sunday and we're going to run around telling other countries what to do? And as for suicide bombings being illogical, just because it isn't logical to you doesn't mean a thing. Sure, I find it ridiculous...but I wasn't raised in that culture. A few hundred years ago martyrdom was a heavy prescence in christianity. Some of the more extremist muslims have simply carried on with such a tradition. This is why America shouldn't ever invade any country. We don't understand the first thing about their culture and we don't want to. We define justice by the death toll.

the illogical point was just in retort to you saying not wanting freedom is illogical... it might seem that way to us, but if you truly believe your way of life is the way to get you into the next life, if thats what you believe, then someone trying to make you act different than what you believe, your gonna be pissed. what if there were still pagen cults all over europe who sacraficed humans to their gods? would we be right to step in there and say no? well i might be in left feild and really stretching it here, but im just saying illogical is assuming there is a correct logic in the whole scheme of things. whihc there might be.. but no ones actions are displaying them. its not ours, its not thiers, but we have the bigger stick so we get to dictate more than they do. in the huge picture its wrong, but for the sake of the enxt few years, it might be the best alternavite... our opportunity cost of not controling them might be a nuked city, or another conventional bomb going off in a major city, or etc etc etc.... logical is far from easily defined in world cultures...

We're going in circles.

They want us dead. Who is to blame for that does not change the fact they do. Logic doesnt work with people who do not see things in the same light as you do.

thank you rob, thats what i was trying to get out

wow, I almost want to go through and read all this. Perhaps in a few weeks when I'm not so busy.

Did some research on the jihad, started in the 632 with the change of the direction of Islam. It wasn't a US creation.

Islam has gone through two other Jihad's since the creation of Islam in 622. We are now about 30 years into the third Jihad.

Fundimental Islams blame their failed economy, lack of land and low social standing on the ideas/social structure of the West. This isn't something new and it is taught in most mosks around the world; of which 80% are funded by Oil money. Get educated and stop blaming government for religious wars. Or imposing characteristics on a people you dont know. They do not follow the same morals as we do. Islam (rough quote) "this sins of a man will be forgiven if he dies in battle" which also means suiced. Further more the Koran says that Peace is a temporary thing until the military of Islam is more powerful then the army they must sign a peace agreement with; in either case this can last for no more then ten years.

They preach intolerance and hate. Now you have a better picture of the world we live in. BTW there is more then a billion of them and in order to be Islamic you must in some part agree with their teachings, with unfortunately makes them all a problem should this recent Jihad get more momentum.

No...it really is a muslim creation. But the idea was pretty much lost on modern muslims until the US stepped in to help Afghans fight off the Soviets in the 80s. It'd be a lot like reintroducing the idea of crusades to christians these days.

Actually you're wrong. I'm taking a course on terrorism as we speak and you're flat out wrong. There are no facts to what you speak of.

The Afgan's were just as much against the USSR as they were against the US. However they needed the US support to defend themselves. They were indeed a covient allie to the US as the US wanted to stop the spread of communism.

However when USSR collapsed and split into 15 countries, the militant forces needed to find a new focus. It was at this time they shifted their views to the US. The US served as a scape goat for all the things wrong in their society. With the vacum of the USSR being gone, and a collapsed economy people with nothing looked for something. The US is the supper power and the prime target to focus on when fighting the western ways. However even Muslims who are less radical then Islams are targets of hate and death. Jihad is a Koran teaching, (rough quote) "If they are not won over by the Koran, they will be taken by the sword" This is from Muhamad's own mouth and is used by Isamic militants when justifing their war. And Muhamad himself waged the first Jihad and is responsible for the conversation of many pagens. No where in either Jewish teachings or Christian teaches are you to convert through fear of death.

In contrast nowhere in the bible does it speak of waging war on non-believers. It however was a sad point in Christian history that religious power corupoted societies to act in less then Christian ways. However Christian armies twice stopped the spread of Islam into Europe, which would have completely changed history.

Further more, at the time Muslim/Islam spread from spain to asia, grew faster then any other religion in history. Things didnt really change until North America was discovered by a European. It was at this time the West advanced from owning 27% of the known world to 60%, and this was not done through religion. It was done through better navigators and military technology. After the West concored North America they created a space of tolerance, even for Muslims. It is in striking contrast to the history of Muslims/Islam; which for 14 centuries waged war without rest.

BTW Muslim/Islam - same book. Islams are more fundimental Muslims. Not unlike the term orthodox.

BTW #2 - I'd personally really like if it you could stop blaming US government for all that is wrong in the world. When compaired to soceities around the world, they are actually one of the most tolerant out there. Not perfect, this I am aware of; but not the reason for terrorism.

You can personally like anything you want...doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

You know what's funny? Christians always like to talk about how the bible preaches love and tolerance and the Qu'Ran preaches violence and cruelty. When weighed in history, who do you think has killed more people in the name of conversion? Christians had all of the Crusades, both Inquisitions, etc. etc. etc. Muslims had...well...not much, really (with the exception of wars fought between other muslims).

And really...a class specifically in terrorism? Somehow I doubt any accredited university would teach such a class. I'm just saying, sounds a bit...questionable.

Which college do you attend?

It's a GE course called 'understanding terrorism' and just because your ignorant to the school system in Canada (which is ranked higher then the US school system) doesn't mean anything in this situation. Other then the fact your US education is failing to educate you. This course explores the history behind terrorism, the development of the term and how it has evolved over time to mean something different. It is both history/terrorism as the two are so closely related.

I already explained the issues with Christians in that area. It cannot be undo, we can only move forward. The major difference, and you have chosen to ignore it is the fact that after we have overcome RC rule of government we are accepting of other religions/views. Consider for a moment the environment in North American before you open your mouth in the future speaking untruths. Canada/US were founded on Christian values, and God is in both of our consititutions. We do no wish to remove Muslims from the face of the earth and seek to maintain a peaceful state. This however is not the same view of things as Islams

Steve - I am actually rather disappointed by your last few debates on this board. In both cases you've come off as misinformed and base your arguements on weak footings.

A course in "understanding terrorism"? Really? What textbook do you use for the curriculum? Does it include Christian terrorists like McVeigh or all of the actions taken by the IRA or maybe even Sawney Bean? It seems a lot like you're focusing on Islam...which makes such a course meaningless and pointless (not to mention bigoted). What college do I attend? Pittsburg State University. Go ahead and look it up...www.pittstate.edu.

The US may have been founded by people with christian values, but that's a far cry to that the entire country was founded on christian values. What I know (that apparently you don't) is that the people who founded this country were human and not immune from fuck ups. Look at the beginning of the Declaration Of Independence for proof. "We the people blah blah blah...in order to form a more perfect union". That's right...this country was founded upon a grammatical fuck up. Things are either perfect or they aren't. There's no such thing as "more perfect". Even if the country as a whole adhered to christian values (and if you believe that, boy did you bet on the wrong horse), christianity like all other religions is just a pawn. Yes, it teaches tolerance and understanding...in theory, the same way islam does. However in the hands of humans with agendas it becomes something more. It becomes an excuse to do whatever you feel is necessary to please your god.

If we don't wish to rid the planet of muslims, we've got a funny way of proving it to them. Bush himself said that we'd take the fight to the streets of Baghdad. That's all fine and good if you're an American...but imagine you're an Iraqi. At this point you're going "what the fuck did we do to you?". The correct answer, of course, is "nothing". There's more torture going on in Iraq now than before we ousted Saddam (just ask the UN) and we've literally given up on 1/3 of the country (Anbar Province...although I doubt I spelled that right). We've killed 130,000 innocent civilians (not counting "insurgents") and we're tolerant of islam? It must be hard to type with your head so firmly planted up your ass.

Actually it covers terrorism back the first acts of terrorism, the phrase was orignally french to describe state terror. The course covers more then recent terrorism, it has started to cover the IRA, AUM (in Japan) and other groups. There is no said text book for the course, however the proffesor who designed the course has his doctorate with his thesis on Terrorism. The course is a GE course and not designed to provide carrer opportunities to students, but rather open their eyes to terrorism and the true routes; not what the last 10 years have shaped us to think of it as.


As for the US they have not declared a holy war on Muslims/Islam neither due they seek to be in constant conflict with them. YOu're focusing to heavily on the last 20 years of conflict, ignoring the last 200 years. In which the US prior to invading Iraq with a UN collolition did not step foot in the middle east.

Adding to this, the US sole purpose is not to remove Muslims from the face of the earth. However that is the goal of Islam, as all non-Islam states and individuals are infidels and need to be converted or removed. This is stated numerous times in the Koran.

Yes there have been mistakes, but you need to look at things in the whole context, not the last 20 years which is a huge recency bias.

Please reply with historical facts, not conjecture or irational opinions.

Side note on colleges - I suspect you dont have a course on terrorism due to the location and lack of cultural influences. I live in Toronto Canada which is the most multi-cultural city in north america. Kansas is far from multi-cultural. There are over 70 launages spoke in this city and cultures from over 100 countries in the world. I suspect this influences greatly the course content of GE courses and what is considered acceptable. I goto georgebrown.ca college in the heart of Toronto. I believe this is the difference.

a more perfect union is not a grammatical fuckup, its a concept of building a better nation. when perfect is used as a verb it can mean to imporve and bring near perfection.
–verb (used with object)
18. to bring to completion; finish.
19. to bring to perfection; make flawless or faultless.
20. to bring nearer to perfection; improve.
21. to make fully skilled.
22. Printing. to print the reverse of (a printed sheet).

granted there are almost 20 other definitions that are deffiniate, or absolute which is near impossible to reach in any circumstance anyways, i have this itching feeling that when they said they wanted to create a more perfect union it ment to improve or try and bring near perfection. the english language has lots of words with many more meanings and EXPECIALLY from a document which was made to not be exact and leave avalibility for interpretation to be able to mold and fit a certain situation, you cannot nail down your favorate meaning of a single word and use that for the basis of an argument.

steve your looking at half the situations and assuming peoples ways of life are a certain way and you know the best outcome for it. i have a good argument, but i wanted it back up with facts, and i dont feel like digging up sources now so i'll get back in a day or so with it

Chris has a point Steve. You're applying your value system to a people who do not believe what Western society does.

Chris...I think the definition you highlighted is used in a different context. I think that's supposed to be the homonym meaning to hone something to pefection. The usage in the Constitution is as an adjective, not a verb. So yeah...it's incorrect.

And how am I only looking at half the situation? I'm intentionally trying to make things as broad as I possibly can by just stating facts with a bit of opinion thrown in. Facts don't have a system of values. I mean if you want to talk about what are commonly held as western or American values, I probably have the LEAST out of the lot here.

Al Anbar is not nearly as lost as you think, or as the media may want you to think.