Terrorism will exist as long as certain conditions exist.

I had the honor of hearing Archbsihop Desmond Tutu speak yesterday evening and he talked about this.
Terrorism

"When you know that there are things like poverty, disease and inequalities in the world today, I am not surprised that terrorism has emerged but why it has taken so long. There comes a time when even a humble and most peace-loving person says I have had enough. My view is that we won't win the war against terror as long as there are conditions that make feelings desperate."
http://www.squidoo.com/desmond-tutu/

So that is one reason why this so-called "war on terror" is unjust. If terrorism is truly what one is concerned about, wouldn't it make more sense to focus on something like, oh, I don't know, poverty?

Do you think that Bush understands this good and well, but would never actually acknowlege it because of his desire to have the war for other, dubious reasons? I mean, I don't know how intelligent the man is, but he certainly has intelligent people around him advising him.

Maybe I am the dumb one. I bet he does know, or at least has the capacity to understand, that what he is doing, this war, will not help the conditions that cause terrorism (some say it is making them worse). He just doesn't care about the conditions people are living in elsewhere. He doesn't even seem to care about it here. Why am I even giving him the benefit of the doubt?
"It is wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." MLK, Jr.

Password= urban
Cross-posting a little here from what I mentioned earlier...

I believe it's all about greed and global domination. This is the first step (or at least the most obvious) to controlling resources in a very powerful part of the world. Terrorism is a convenient and believable excuse and everyone has fallen for it. People may call me a conspiracy theorist but I don't care; I have conducted a lot research on this and the more I learn, the more afraid I become.

As I've said before, Bush is dangerous. He is a snake without a conscience, he's rich, and he's extremely well-connected. There is no end to the damage he can cause.
I think you're right, Tantrum. I don't like to believe it's true (Bush's true goals and intentionally manipulating people by planting fear into them, or stoking what was already there-- that's a fascist technique) because it sickens me and makes me so angry, but denial is pretty dangerous.

Is that what most Americans are in; denial? 40 some percent of us still think that Bush is doing a good job.

What do you think will happen after the next president is elected? Do you think Bush's wrath will continue? I know that Bush is continuing on with Reagan's wrath as far as domestic policy is concerned.
"It is wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." MLK, Jr.

Password= urban
I'm not such a conspiracy theorist. I think it's business as usual. When has Washington, or any other government in history, decided to help people instead of kill people to deal with a threat? It's in human nature to react in such a way, but it doesn't have to be. We have free will.

I saw a piece recently on Dennis Kucinich's U.S. Department of Peace initiative. He wants there to be a cabinet member for peace. How absolutely wonderful would that be?

The problem is, there are some people in this world, many of them working in goverment, and certainly a lot of people advising Bush, who scoff at the idea of peace. They interviewed a congressman from AZ for the piece and he literally laughed at the concept. He smirked throughout the whole interview as though the whole thing was a joke. That's how jaded and pathetic a lot of people are.

Here's a transcript of the story and you can watch it there too.

In the story, one woman said that it's a lot easier to drop a bomb than to go in and deal with problems through dialog and working with people. Easier in the short run that is. In the long run, bombs and guns cause way more problems, of course. The hatred they sow is immeasurable and manifests in countless ways. And it's not just pain for our enemies but us too. Look at the thread on PTSD on these boards. That hurts our country for many years, affecting many lives, not just those of the soldiers, but their families and friends.

Unfortunately, we have an idea in this country that everything should be resolved quickly and cheaply. So that's another hurdle to get past.
I agree with you as well, sfcurlee. For me it's a matter of semantics whether it's conspiracy or long-practiced sick dysfunctionality.

My SOs mom heard Kucinich speak recently! It's so depressing to me that a congressman, or anyone, would roll their eyes at the thought of a Department of Peace. But at least there are politicians who would suggest such a thing. Thank you for the link!!

SOs mom or maybe it was his dad also used this analogy of world conflict as knots in a rope. Instead of taking the time to carefully unknot it, therefore not permanently harming any of the threads and fibers, the US just comes along with a hack-saw and fire and slashes and burns its way through it. Consequently causing irreparable damage to all sides.

And do you really think it's human nature to react with violence rather than with compassion and negotiations? If it is, I think it's barbaric and that many of us have evolved past that. Unfortunately, I guess most people who are in power are still at or operating from that level.
"It is wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." MLK, Jr.

Password= urban
I do think it's human nature. In our animal nature, we have the fight or flight response. When it comes to global struggles, these seem to prevail. I think our gut instincts kick in -- fight or flight?! -- and then some general says that war is the answer. Or a political leader says we have to ignore the problem because we cannot afford to get involved. And one gut reaction gets reinforced and we're either off to war or ignoring atrocities. It happens all the time.

I agree with you that many individuals have evolved past this. I really think that if people start acting peacefully and proactively in their own lives and this becomes the norm, we will eventually have peace between nations.

It has to start at the individual level, because government always follows the people, not the other way around.

However, I do think a Dept of Peace could be a positive thing for an otherwise fairly militaristic, greedy and self-absorbed nation. It could plant a seed.
Urban, that's what I've been saying forever! I love Tutu!
Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali











Urban, that's what I've been saying forever! I love Tutu!
Originally Posted by Amneris
"It is wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." MLK, Jr.

Password= urban
Okay I have to say something. Are you people oblivious to what Jihad is? People who exist in a state of Jihad do not want to come "talk with you to work things out." There IS NO working things out. They believe that if you are not following the Koran, they are at war with you. That is "the state of Jihad". If you are not a Koran following Muslim, then the radical Muslim believes you are in a state of Jihad with them. It doesn't matter what color you are, what country you are in, what language you speak, if you do not follow the Koran, they are AT WAR with you and as an infidel, you must die. it doesn't matter if you are Arab, if you are not a Koran-following Arab, they are in a state of war with you and unless you convert you must die.

This is how Islam originally spread if you recall: Muhammad and his armies conquered the areas around them.

I just cannot stomach when people start saying that we need to "go and talk" with these people. There is no going and talking. Their creeds clearly state that if you are not a Koran following person and will not convert, YOU MUST DIE. You are an infidel and must die. What part of "must die" do you not understand?

This is not a new thing. Radical Muslims have been blowing up people and killing people around the world for years. France and Spain are terrified of the large influx of radical muslims in their country who PUBLICALLY SPEAK in their countries about taking over the government. This is not an American problem, this is not an Israeli problem, this is not a European problem: it is a Global Problem.

And then you go and say "lets just talk with them". If President Clinton (God bless him, yes I voted for him but yes he made mistakes) did not let Bin Laden go (yes Bin Laden was detained and Clinton let him go) because he was so much into "talking and working things out" with radical extremists, we wouldn't be in such a big mess.

Listen please. I implore you: These people will DIE for their cause which is KILLING YOU to please Allah. If you think for one second that you can TALK to someone who has been trained to die for their cause to kill you, then I beg you to re-think.

Terrorism is not new. It has been here for decades, increasing in tenacity, boldness, and technological means. People have been dying around the globe. America has been hit around the globe and it wasn't until it hit American soil that Americans really began paying attention. Terrorism has not recently emerged and it is well-financed. These people are terrorizing because you are an infidel and you must die.

I've said my peace. I just couldn't believe that you all were saying "lets go and work things out --la la la -- with the radical extremists."

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/pri...815555,00.html
----------------------------------------------
My 50% Cherokee/50% African-American pedigree produced: 3B/3C/4A, corkscrew curls, easy to detangle, Medium, thin-normal, dark brown hair.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
How did I miss this thread?!! I have a busy ahead but I will be back.
Peace2,

Capturing a specific terrorist and declaring war are two very, very different things.

That's all I can muster at the moment! Hopefully Cherish and others will add their views and ideas too.

Oh, and the way you say Islam spread, "Muhammad and his armies conquered the areas around them," didn't Christianity gain quite a few members that way too?
"It is wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." MLK, Jr.

Password= urban
Even if it were possible to end poverty in countries over which you have no authority, poverty is not the only cause of terrorism. It is a contributor to the numbers for certain, but it is not the only cause. You may recall the Madrid bombings. In the statement about why Spain was bombed, one of the reasons given was in retaliation for the Crusades. The CRUSADES that happened a thousand years ago. That ain't poverty. That's the extreme inability to let go of a grudge. Make the Hatfields and McCoys look down right reasonable for how long their dispute lasted.
I agree with you Lucille; poverty isn't the only cause of terrorism.
"It is wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." MLK, Jr.

Password= urban
That was easily the fastest response in the history of the Politics forum.
And to agree with someone as well!
"It is wrong to use moral means to preserve immoral ends." MLK, Jr.

Password= urban
Capturing a specific terrorist?

There are thousands of terrorists. I hope you are not simply referring to Osama alone. He commands armies and declared war publically on the U.S. in the 1990's. War declaration had already been pronounced against US. And then, they attacked us on our own soil. The first strike in New York City was cruel, callous, and very well calculated.

We are not in a war against a specific person but against thousands of persons.

Declare war? We are responding to the declaration that is on us. As I said, it is a global fight we have world-wide.

As for Christianity gaining members as a result of force or violence, that began to happen in medieval times once Christianity became corrupt. As you only need to look into history to become aware of the deep perversions that became rooted in the ROman church, but if you go back to ancient history and that is what early Christianity is, ancient history, not medieval history, which is when Islam began to spread (about 600-700 AD as compared to 0 AD which is when Christianity began to srpead), you will find that early Christianity was in no way spread through violence or coercion. In fact people died and were fed to beasts in the Coliseum as punishment for their Christian faith by the Roman Empire. Remember Nero? So no, we're talking about distinct differences here. We're talkinga bout Islam, since its inception, gaining converts through violence and Christianity gaining converts through peaceful resistance amidst persecution (remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?)

So, one cannot argue and say Islam is corrupt and became violent and now it's what it is. We can say that about Christianity, that at one point it became violent and at one point, it converted people through force. However, nowhere in the New Testament from cover to cover will you ever see the use of violence being encouraged as a means of gaining converts.

In contrast, the Koran in its original form does advocate the use of violence for gaining converts, to the point of death, and this is true (and practiced) to this day. To such an extent that Islam desires gaining an Islamic state world-wide so that there will be no infidels and Allah will be pleased. They are willing to die for this.

In fact, let's quote the Koran.

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)

**Note that these people are doing exactly what their scriptures say: chopping off the heads of the infidels.

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)



Peace
----------------------------------------------
My 50% Cherokee/50% African-American pedigree produced: 3B/3C/4A, corkscrew curls, easy to detangle, Medium, thin-normal, dark brown hair.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
I had the honor of hearing Archbsihop Desmond Tutu speak yesterday evening and he talked about this.
Terrorism

"When you know that there are things like poverty, disease and inequalities in the world today, I am not surprised that terrorism has emerged but why it has taken so long. There comes a time when even a humble and most peace-loving person says I have had enough. My view is that we won't win the war against terror as long as there are conditions that make feelings desperate."
http://www.squidoo.com/desmond-tutu/
Originally Posted by urbancurl
I have much respect for Desmond Tutu, but other than the sentence I bolded, it's evident he knows very little about terrorism, and perhaps should look into it closer because addressing it publicly.

Peace2 is correct that terrorism is not new. I've posted before that long before the US had 9/11, many of lived with it as a daily reality, albeit in the form of smaller attacks. There is/was the IRA, PLO, basque separatists and many others in various countries. So when he says why it's taken so long, I have to say: where have you been?!

It's not poverty... it's greed. When one country takes the land of another and calls it theirs leading to decades of bitterness and hate that festers and is passed from one generation to the next, the facts can sometimes become blurry because one only sees the hate, but not the root cause. And this is why it's so important to refer to history.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
Okay I have to say something. Are you people oblivious to what Jihad is? People who exist in a state of Jihad do not want to come "talk with you to work things out." There IS NO working things out. They believe that if you are not following the Koran, they are at war with you. That is "the state of Jihad". If you are not a Koran following Muslim, then the radical Muslim believes you are in a state of Jihad with them. It doesn't matter what color you are, what country you are in, what language you speak, if you do not follow the Koran, they are AT WAR with you and as an infidel, you must die. it doesn't matter if you are Arab, if you are not a Koran-following Arab, they are in a state of war with you and unless you convert you must die.

This is how Islam originally spread if you recall: Muhammad and his armies conquered the areas around them.

I just cannot stomach when people start saying that we need to "go and talk" with these people. There is no going and talking. Their creeds clearly state that if you are not a Koran following person and will not convert, YOU MUST DIE. You are an infidel and must die. What part of "must die" do you not understand?

This is not a new thing. Radical Muslims have been blowing up people and killing people around the world for years. France and Spain are terrified of the large influx of radical muslims in their country who PUBLICALLY SPEAK in their countries about taking over the government. This is not an American problem, this is not an Israeli problem, this is not a European problem: it is a Global Problem.

And then you go and say "lets just talk with them". If President Clinton (God bless him, yes I voted for him but yes he made mistakes) did not let Bin Laden go (yes Bin Laden was detained and Clinton let him go) because he was so much into "talking and working things out" with radical extremists, we wouldn't be in such a big mess.

Listen please. I implore you: These people will DIE for their cause which is KILLING YOU to please Allah. If you think for one second that you can TALK to someone who has been trained to die for their cause to kill you, then I beg you to re-think.
Originally Posted by Peace2
Pure propaganda. I can't believe they fed you this and you swallowed.

Terrorism is not new. It has been here for decades, increasing in tenacity, boldness, and technological means. People have been dying around the globe. America has been hit around the globe and it wasn't until it hit American soil that Americans really began paying attention. Terrorism has not recently emerged and it is well-financed. These people are terrorizing because you are an infidel and you must die.
I agree with this. It's nothing new and they do mean business, but they can be reasoned with, especially if the US would stop taking sides with Israel for one. Many, especially Maggie Thatcher, used to say one doesn't negotiate with terrorists because they are not reasonable people. Well, her time is long gone and the IRA disarmed thanks to peace talks - Clinton was involved in those talks btw.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 6,581
As for Christianity gaining members as a result of force or violence, that began to happen in medieval times once Christianity became corrupt. As you only need to look into history to become aware of the deep perversions that became rooted in the ROman church, but if you go back to ancient history and that is what early Christianity is, ancient history, not medieval history, which is when Islam began to spread (about 600-700 AD as compared to 0 AD which is when Christianity began to srpead), you will find that early Christianity was in no way spread through violence or coercion. In fact people died and were fed to beasts in the Coliseum as punishment for their Christian faith by the Roman Empire. Remember Nero? So no, we're talking about distinct differences here. We're talkinga bout Islam, since its inception, gaining converts through violence and Christianity gaining converts through peaceful resistance amidst persecution (remember Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.?)

So, one cannot argue and say Islam is corrupt and became violent and now it's what it is. We can say that about Christianity, that at one point it became violent and at one point, it converted people through force. However, nowhere in the New Testament from cover to cover will you ever see the use of violence being encouraged as a means of gaining converts.

In contrast, the Koran in its original form does advocate the use of violence for gaining converts, to the point of death, and this is true (and practiced) to this day. To such an extent that Islam desires gaining an Islamic state world-wide so that there will be no infidels and Allah will be pleased. They are willing to die for this.

In fact, let's quote the Koran.

"Prophet, make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites, and deal harshly with them. Hell shall be their home: an evil fate." (Sura 9.73)

"When you meet the unbelievers in jihad, chop off their heads. And when you have brought them low, bind your prisoners rigorously. Then set them free or take ransom from them until the war is ended." (Sura 47.4)

**Note that these people are doing exactly what their scriptures say: chopping off the heads of the infidels.

"Mohammed is Allah's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Sura 48.29)

Peace
Originally Posted by Peace2
If you're going by what the Quran says to do to non believers, then what about Sodom and Gomorrah, and Noah's Ark? Those are examples of non believers being "justly" wiped out.

Also, trying to argue timelines of ancient vs medieval makes no sense in this context. People have been killed in the name of both religions, so your "yes, but..." argument is not valid.
Obviously you did not read my post. I said that nothing in the New Testament ever teaches the use of violence. Sodom and Gomorrah is in the Old Testament, which is referring to ancient Judaism, NOT Christianity.

Also, with Sodom and Gomorroah and Noah's Ark, God did not issue a command for "believers" (i.e. human agents) to wipe out the unbelievers. Rather, according to the Bible God did this through the use of natural disasters. Quite different it is for people to die in natural disasters, attributed to nature, than people to die at the hand of others under the command of God.

Secondly, again, the Koran makes explicit claims that people should be killed for the sake of Allah. The New Testament does not. Whether people mishandle the Bible and use it for evil is not the fault of the Bible or Christianity but the fault of those who are handling it. There is no mishandling in a Muslim's killing others who are unbelievers; they are directly following commands from the Koran.

Even stilll, you do not see Christian countries waging war against unbelievers; you do see Muslim countries waging war against unbelievers. And this is our current peril; this is the danger we face.

Peace
----------------------------------------------
My 50% Cherokee/50% African-American pedigree produced: 3B/3C/4A, corkscrew curls, easy to detangle, Medium, thin-normal, dark brown hair.

Trending Topics


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:11 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 NaturallyCurly.com