There?s a deliberate campaign of deception in the European media.
That might be true too, but the same could easily be said about the US media. How many marched in London? It was very strong support for a UN sanctioned action.
That might be true too, but the same could easily be said about the US media. How many marched in London? It was very strong support for a UN sanctioned action.
You have to look at who was there. And No. I don?t consider first generation Yurropeans, people like Hassan and that imposter Harrald, to be real Europeans. Neither do they, going by their posts. And neither do I consider them professional protesters to be representative of real public opinion.
Regards the North American media: you?d be surprised, but I prefer very little exposure to it. Sure, I have access to CNN, NBC, CBC, etc. but I?ve long ago stopped patronizing their product. I can tell you that their past coverage of Israel was highly biased, and bordered on the anti-Semitic. But that holds true for almost all the major media outlets.
Mika mika mika- hassan and harald are real europeans- they live there. I don't agree with them on this issue but I've never doubted their genuinely held beliefs- ditto bunge and giant and pflam. Your rant about arabist euro media is twaddle-aka bollocks. You are possibly biased on certain matters?
Of-course I have an emotional bias. But what you?re trying to imply is that I can?t discern the truth because of it. And to that I say, bollocks!! When your BBC whitewashes and conceals Arab and Muslim crimes throughout the world, and gives a one-sided arabized account of what goes on here, my bias does not play a role. And neither does my bias play a role in the fact that so many from the BBC are now sitting in al-Jazzera offices.
Bin Laden, if he?s still alive does NOT want this war. Bin Laden, like Saddam, and many other Arabs have a very low opinion of American resolve.
Bin Laden, I'm very much afraid and sad to say DOES want this war. And he wants this war for two important reasons for his campaign. Why?
1. Bin Laden wants nothing more than to prove to the Muslim world that there is a Western/Christian conspiracy or resolve to destroy and/or subjugate the Muslim world. The Iraq war, like the war against Afganistan, falls right into his diatribe about the Christian vs Muslim world order. It also doesn't help the situation (except for Bin Laden) that George W. Bush is as overtly and piously Christian as he is. This war will only go further towards strengthening the resolve of Muslims in their negative assessment of the US, Britain and the rest of the west. Terrorist attacks will be more likely because of this war than without it.
2. Bin Laden also wants desperately to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from Iraq. In fact, Bin Laden and Saddam are long time enemies. Why? Saddam Hussein's Baathist party is a nonsecular government (something rarely if ever mentioned in the press seeing as Dubya is intent on cracking Islamic fundamentalism and he would rather not remind us that Saddam drove religious fundamentalists out of Iraqi politics) and as a nonsecular party without the religious convictions Bin Laden relies on they are useless to Al-Qaeda's cause. In fact they just get in the way of returning the Middle east to the fundamentalist state that Bin Laden wants. The sooner the Baathist regime is removed the sooner and more likely an Islamic fundamentalist party could take control of Iraq.
This has nothing to do with any school playground mentality of concern with American resolve or lack of it, as much as that sort of simplistic analysis might make the current war scenario easier to swallow.
You're basically making the same argument as tonton. This is a false argument, as the numbers clearly attest. Most of the votes did NOT come from the ruling party, but from the opposition!! What incentive would they, THE OPPOSITION, have voting for Blair?
I can't find a good link to a clear explanations of the numbers so you're going to have to trust me on this: Blair would have won the vote even if the opposition hadn't turned up i.e. more than half his party supported the motion.
The key point you are missing is that Blair and his opposition leader told their party members how to vote. The very fact that 139 Labour MP's disobeyed this order is significant.
You also have to remember is that Blair is the leader of the left-wing and socialist Labour party who are naturally more anti-war than the Conservatives, who, while in power, aided companies who supplied weapons to people like, for example, Saddam Hussein.
The supergun scandal is one example where the ability to easily shell cities in Israel was nearly sold to Iraq by British companies.
Bin Laden, I'm very much afraid and sad to say DOES want this war. And he wants this war for two important reasons for his campaign. Why?
1. Bin Laden wants nothing more than to prove to the Muslim world that there is a Western/Christian conspiracy or resolve to destroy and/or subjugate the Muslim world. The Iraq war, like the war against Afganistan, falls right into his diatribe about the Christian vs Muslim world order. It also doesn't help the situation (except for Bin Laden) that George W. Bush is as overtly and piously Christian as he is. This war will only go further towards strengthening the resolve of Muslims in their negative assessment of the US, Britain and the rest of the west. Terrorist attacks will be more likely because of this war than without it.
2. Bin Laden also wants desperately to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from Iraq. In fact, Bin Laden and Saddam are long time enemies. Why? Saddam Hussein's Baathist party is a nonsecular government (something rarely if ever mentioned in the press seeing as Dubya is intent on cracking Islamic fundamentalism and he would rather not remind us that Saddam drove religious fundamentalists out of Iraqi politics) and as a nonsecular party without the religious convictions Bin Laden relies on they are useless to Al-Qaeda's cause. In fact they just get in the way of returning the Middle east to the fundamentalist state that Bin Laden wants. The sooner the Baathist regime is removed the sooner and more likely an Islamic fundamentalist party could take control of Iraq.
This has nothing to do with any school playground mentality of concern with American resolve or lack of it, as much as that sort of simplistic analysis might make the current war scenario easier to swallow.
Secularism and modernity aren?t a threat to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Neither are democracy nor capitalism. All you?re doing by even acknowledging this by advocating for a tepid response is in fact making the case for Bin Laden. It?s like putting someone in special ed class and telling them they?re not stupid or slow.
I was born in Yurrup, and yet I am "not a true European."
Many Israelis were born in America and Europe and yet they have more right to the occupied territories then the people who have been living their for generations. A
This is called "racism," and you could at least be consistent, too.
And another thing, you know precisely jack shit about the UK media it seems -- a deliberate campaign of misinformation indeed. Laughable.
Secularism and modernity aren?t a threat to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Neither are democracy nor capitalism. All you?re doing by even acknowledging this by advocating for a tepid response is in fact making the case for Bin Laden. It?s like putting someone in special ed class and telling them they?re not stupid or slow.
Ok. To begin with I did not state or, I believe, imply that "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" was a threat to "Judaism" or "Christianity" or "Islam." First, nowhere in my post do you find the words "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" or "judaism". Attacking arguments that aren't there does not help your side of the debate.
What I did say was that in Bin Laden's eyes and according to his position (note this is not MY view but is Bin Laden's) the American campaign represents the Christian crusading side of the ideological scenario of Christianity VS. Islam. This ideology Bin Laden uses to whip up support for Al-Qaeda and nothing helps support this ideology more than wars perpetrated by a piously Christian American president against an Islamic country like Afghanistan or Iraq. For someone (Bin Laden) who wants to see the Islamic world rise up and repel the west from its lands a war like this is a dream come true.
I also said that Saddam's Baathist regime was a threat to Bin Laden's desire for a fundamentalist Middle East because it is one of only a very few secular governments in the middle east and one that had repelled fundamentalists like Bin Laden when it came into power. Saddam Hussein is no friend of Bin Laden and I'm afraid people who believe he is have been suckered by propaganda about their "relationship" that has largely disappeared now because it is so untenable.
I don't believe that "secularism", as you call it, or modernity is a threat to Judaism, Christianity or Islam. The views I put forward in my above post are the views of Bin Laden as I see them. I am not "making the case" for Bin Laden but merely trying to understand the logic of his campaign. Without doing this we threaten ignorance and the perpetuation of these conflicts. Unfortunately, public ignorance of these issues and consequently the perpetuation of the ideological divide between the "christian" and the "muslim" world is in the interest of some parties on all sides of this conflict.
I was born in Yurrup, and yet I am "not a true European."
Many Israelis were born in America and Europe and yet they have more right to the occupied territories then the people who have been living their for generations.
You are an imposter.
Ask the Spanish why they drove the Arabs from their land. Arabs were there for generations. Unfortunately, you can't ask that question of the indigenous peoples of Egypt, or the other North African peoples. They no longer exist, or have the power to resist the sword of the Islamic empire.
Ok. To begin with I did not state or, I believe, imply that "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" was a threat to "Judaism" or "Christianity" or "Islam." First, nowhere in my post do you find the words "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" or "judaism". Attacking arguments that aren't there does not help your side of the debate.
Yes, you did imply that. When you talk about Bin Laden or other Islamic fundamentalists, that?s exactly what?s implied. If you can?t appreciate what Bin Laden stands for, or what he stands against, there?s no point in me even talking to you. I wont bother reading the rest of your post.
What I did say was that in Bin Laden's eyes and according to his position (note this is not MY view but is Bin Laden's) the American campaign represents the Christian crusading side of the ideological scenario of Christianity VS. Islam. This ideology Bin Laden uses to whip up support for Al-Qaeda and nothing helps support this ideology more than wars perpetrated by a piously Christian American president against an Islamic country like Afghanistan or Iraq. For someone (Bin Laden) who wants to see the Islamic world rise up and repel the west from its lands a war like this is a dream come true.
What this is is your view. Period. Unless you are Bin Laden it is your view. It may be you trying to pretend to show his view, but it is your view of his view. Thus, YOUR VIEW.
Yes, you did imply that. When you talk about Bin Laden or other Islamic fundamentalists, that?s exactly what?s implied. If you can?t appreciate what Bin Laden stands for, or what he stands against, there?s no point in me even talking to you. I wont bother reading the rest of your post.
Mika, look, I know it is difficult to confront ideas that don't fit with your own and, for many, the easiest thing when they find the heat too much is, as they say, to "get out of the kitchen."
You may not bother reading the rest of my post but, you know, while I'm disappointed I'm also not much bothered. You see, this is an open forum and I know other people will and already have read this thread including my posts and can rely on their own rational powers to judge both sides of the debate.
edit: oh, and might I add that for someone who was so concerned with the question of "resolve" and how "America's resolve" is viewed in the Middle East you come across as someone who distinctly lacks resolve in this thread.
What this is is your view. Period. Unless you are Bin Laden it is your view. It may be you trying to pretend to show his view, but it is your view of his view. Thus, YOUR VIEW.
Well, NoahJ you do have a point here and I take it. I certainly am not Bin Laden and so the view I am expressing can in no way be the literal view of Bin Laden's himself.
But, to be fair, I was attempting to do what people do all the time: to try think from another person's vantage point (in everyday language, to "step into someone else's shoes"). This is clearly different from putting across a view that I espouse and claim is the truth and from which I measure my actions in the world.
This distinction is important (and one I'm afraid Mika misses) because if someone does in fact hold to the view that whatever I say can only be representative of myself and that I in fact can never understand or attempt to think from the viewpoint of another that person in fact ends up removing the very ground by which any of us can partake in a debate or argument at all.
So, yes, this is my attempt at imagining the way Bin Laden would react to this conflict, or as you put it, "my view of his view." But until someone else puts forth a more cogent view or until someone attempts to amend the view I have put forward it still stands as a view to be reckoned with rather than ignored. So please, why don't you give me your view of his view?
Ok. To begin with I did not state or, I believe, imply that "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" was a threat to "Judaism" or "Christianity" or "Islam." First, nowhere in my post do you find the words "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" or "judaism". Attacking arguments that aren't there does not help your side of the debate.
What I did say was that in Bin Laden's eyes and according to his position (note this is not MY view but is Bin Laden's) the American campaign represents the Christian crusading side of the ideological scenario of Christianity VS. Islam. This ideology Bin Laden uses to whip up support for Al-Qaeda and nothing helps support this ideology more than wars perpetrated by a piously Christian American president against an Islamic country like Afghanistan or Iraq. For someone (Bin Laden) who wants to see the Islamic world rise up and repel the west from its lands a war like this is a dream come true.
I also said that Saddam's Baathist regime was a threat to Bin Laden's desire for a fundamentalist Middle East because it is one of only a very few secular governments in the middle east and one that had repelled fundamentalists like Bin Laden when it came into power. Saddam Hussein is no friend of Bin Laden and I'm afraid people who believe he is have been suckered by propaganda about their "relationship" that has largely disappeared now because it is so untenable.
I don't believe that "secularism", as you call it, or modernity is a threat to Judaism, Christianity or Islam. The views I put forward in my above post are the views of Bin Laden as I see them. I am not "making the case" for Bin Laden but merely trying to understand the logic of his campaign. Without doing this we threaten ignorance and the perpetuation of these conflicts. Unfortunately, public ignorance of these issues and consequently the perpetuation of the ideological divide between the "christian" and the "muslim" world is in the interest of some parties on all sides of this conflict.
Your comment on "special ed class" is spurious.
I have a feeling you could argue your case on this with Mika (and indeed anyone else with that type of "mindset") until the the 12th of Never (or the San Diego Chargers winning the Superbowl, whichever comes first) and never convince him/her of the validity of another point of view.
People like Mika and NoahJ seem to feel that if you have an insight into someone else's thinking, you must agree with their philosophy, a point of view which is not so much illogical as irrational beyond belief.
Many intelligence authorities and independant analysts agree with the views you put forward, but - using their 'logic' (sic) Mika and NoahJ would doubtless state that they must be in sympathy with bin Laden and Al Qaida, and ignore the fact that military and political strategists throughout history have often argued that to defeat an opponent, you must first understand their thinking.
And Mika, if you're online or you read this later, have a think on this.
When you start to talk about how great it would be to have "American values" all over the globe as you have done in another thread, do you mean the American values that led to My Lai, the values that lead to the grooming and arming of Osama bin Laden in the 1980's, that lead to the supply of biological agents to Iraq in the first place (ironically by the very man who now heads the Department of Defense).
Or maybe you mean the values that lead to the "ethnic cleansing" of the native American in the 19th century, or - to be more current - the American values that lead to over 27,000 firearms-related deaths in 2000.
Nearly every country and/or culture has dirt under its fingernails, so let's not pretend that any one culture or nation-state has a monoply on virtue, because that's just naive.
And just so I can establish my right to have a view on this subject: I'm a Jew born in England, my father is English, my mother was born in Calcutta, her parents were born in Burma and what is now Iran and her grandparents were born in Baghdad and Tehran. I'm not an Iraqi sympathiser and I do believe that Hussein is a megalomaniac; I do wish that we had more solid evidence before embarking on this route, but I also recognise that the likelihood is that we would never have been able to get a solid resolution from the UNSC; I believe that people like Hussein and bin Laden use the Palestinian issue as a smokescreen and a platform for propaganda, but I also believe that the question of peaceful co-existence needs to addressed in a meaningful and mature manner which seems to be beyond the somewhat limited mindsets of people like Sharon and Arafat.
What all of this makes me is a character that is able to recognise subtlety and complexity, you should open up your mind and try it sometime, as opposed to spouting reactionary, revisionist twaddle which makes you come across as a venal crypto-Nazi who probably thinks the Ku Klux Klan is too liberal.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
..
You?ve been brain washed by the British and European media, and I feel sorry for you. Also, I really don?t care to get into an argument with you regards the self-evident. You read my previous post so you know exactly where I stand re American values. Your point about every nation and culture having dirt under its fingernail is self-annulling. Think on that. If you still have trouble following, I?ll elaborate.
You have to look at who was there. And No. I don?t consider first generation Yurropeans, people like Hassan and that imposter Harrald, to be real Europeans. Neither do they, going by their posts. And neither do I consider them professional protesters to be representative of real public opinion.
I've got passable French
I can whip up an aoli in the time it takes to seperate the yolk from the white
I used to smoke black tobacco
I really like Peter Greenaway's films
I regard Macdonald's fine beefburger restaurants with horror and fear
Crikey Moses, chaps, how Yurrupean can you get?
Now, Mika, you were born in Lithuania (am I right?) and grew up in Europe and North America, so it strikes me if I'm not European you'd better not have the sauce to come here and tell me you're a true citizen of the Middle East.
I wont contest that you are if you don't contest that I am.
Now, Mika, you were born in Lithuania (am I right?) and grew up in Europe and North America, so it strikes me if I'm not European you'd better not have the sauce to come here and tell me you're a true citizen of the Middle East.
I wont contest that you are if you don't contest that I am.
No, Hassan.
Yes I was born in Europe, in Lithuania, as you correctly remembered. But, and this is a BIG but, I consider myself a natural part of the Middle East by virtue of my identity as a Jew and son of Judah, and the ethnic/cultural heritage built in into that identity. Everything from language, to cultural traditions, to national folklore and mythology, to an identity with the land, is built in into that that identity. (In short, a whole civilization). So, to compare our situations as new immigrants is spurious and shallow, and therefore I cannot accept your analogy, or offer.
Comments
your old account was banned.. i don't know why. it's not anymore.
feel free to go back, if you want.
Originally posted by Jonathan
mika:
your old account was banned.. i don't know why. it's not anymore.
feel free to go back, if you want.
Thanks Jonathan.
Is it possible to get my old PC^KILLA account?
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
I?m a little closer the scene than you are.
Probably true.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
I?m also a tad more honest than you are.
Doubtful.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
There?s a deliberate campaign of deception in the European media.
That might be true too, but the same could easily be said about the US media. How many marched in London? It was very strong support for a UN sanctioned action.
Doubtful.
No doubt in my mind.
Quote:
That might be true too, but the same could easily be said about the US media. How many marched in London? It was very strong support for a UN sanctioned action.
You have to look at who was there. And No. I don?t consider first generation Yurropeans, people like Hassan and that imposter Harrald, to be real Europeans. Neither do they, going by their posts. And neither do I consider them professional protesters to be representative of real public opinion.
Regards the North American media: you?d be surprised, but I prefer very little exposure to it. Sure, I have access to CNN, NBC, CBC, etc. but I?ve long ago stopped patronizing their product. I can tell you that their past coverage of Israel was highly biased, and bordered on the anti-Semitic. But that holds true for almost all the major media outlets.
Originally posted by Alex London
.
.
You are possibly biased on certain matters?
Of-course I have an emotional bias. But what you?re trying to imply is that I can?t discern the truth because of it. And to that I say, bollocks!! When your BBC whitewashes and conceals Arab and Muslim crimes throughout the world, and gives a one-sided arabized account of what goes on here, my bias does not play a role. And neither does my bias play a role in the fact that so many from the BBC are now sitting in al-Jazzera offices.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Bin Laden, if he?s still alive does NOT want this war. Bin Laden, like Saddam, and many other Arabs have a very low opinion of American resolve.
Bin Laden, I'm very much afraid and sad to say DOES want this war. And he wants this war for two important reasons for his campaign. Why?
1. Bin Laden wants nothing more than to prove to the Muslim world that there is a Western/Christian conspiracy or resolve to destroy and/or subjugate the Muslim world. The Iraq war, like the war against Afganistan, falls right into his diatribe about the Christian vs Muslim world order. It also doesn't help the situation (except for Bin Laden) that George W. Bush is as overtly and piously Christian as he is. This war will only go further towards strengthening the resolve of Muslims in their negative assessment of the US, Britain and the rest of the west. Terrorist attacks will be more likely because of this war than without it.
2. Bin Laden also wants desperately to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from Iraq. In fact, Bin Laden and Saddam are long time enemies. Why? Saddam Hussein's Baathist party is a nonsecular government (something rarely if ever mentioned in the press seeing as Dubya is intent on cracking Islamic fundamentalism and he would rather not remind us that Saddam drove religious fundamentalists out of Iraqi politics) and as a nonsecular party without the religious convictions Bin Laden relies on they are useless to Al-Qaeda's cause. In fact they just get in the way of returning the Middle east to the fundamentalist state that Bin Laden wants. The sooner the Baathist regime is removed the sooner and more likely an Islamic fundamentalist party could take control of Iraq.
This has nothing to do with any school playground mentality of concern with American resolve or lack of it, as much as that sort of simplistic analysis might make the current war scenario easier to swallow.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
You're basically making the same argument as tonton. This is a false argument, as the numbers clearly attest. Most of the votes did NOT come from the ruling party, but from the opposition!! What incentive would they, THE OPPOSITION, have voting for Blair?
I can't find a good link to a clear explanations of the numbers so you're going to have to trust me on this: Blair would have won the vote even if the opposition hadn't turned up i.e. more than half his party supported the motion.
The key point you are missing is that Blair and his opposition leader told their party members how to vote. The very fact that 139 Labour MP's disobeyed this order is significant.
You also have to remember is that Blair is the leader of the left-wing and socialist Labour party who are naturally more anti-war than the Conservatives, who, while in power, aided companies who supplied weapons to people like, for example, Saddam Hussein.
The supergun scandal is one example where the ability to easily shell cities in Israel was nearly sold to Iraq by British companies.
Originally posted by Retrograde
Bin Laden, I'm very much afraid and sad to say DOES want this war. And he wants this war for two important reasons for his campaign. Why?
1. Bin Laden wants nothing more than to prove to the Muslim world that there is a Western/Christian conspiracy or resolve to destroy and/or subjugate the Muslim world. The Iraq war, like the war against Afganistan, falls right into his diatribe about the Christian vs Muslim world order. It also doesn't help the situation (except for Bin Laden) that George W. Bush is as overtly and piously Christian as he is. This war will only go further towards strengthening the resolve of Muslims in their negative assessment of the US, Britain and the rest of the west. Terrorist attacks will be more likely because of this war than without it.
2. Bin Laden also wants desperately to remove Saddam Hussein and his regime from Iraq. In fact, Bin Laden and Saddam are long time enemies. Why? Saddam Hussein's Baathist party is a nonsecular government (something rarely if ever mentioned in the press seeing as Dubya is intent on cracking Islamic fundamentalism and he would rather not remind us that Saddam drove religious fundamentalists out of Iraqi politics) and as a nonsecular party without the religious convictions Bin Laden relies on they are useless to Al-Qaeda's cause. In fact they just get in the way of returning the Middle east to the fundamentalist state that Bin Laden wants. The sooner the Baathist regime is removed the sooner and more likely an Islamic fundamentalist party could take control of Iraq.
This has nothing to do with any school playground mentality of concern with American resolve or lack of it, as much as that sort of simplistic analysis might make the current war scenario easier to swallow.
Secularism and modernity aren?t a threat to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Neither are democracy nor capitalism. All you?re doing by even acknowledging this by advocating for a tepid response is in fact making the case for Bin Laden. It?s like putting someone in special ed class and telling them they?re not stupid or slow.
I was born in Yurrup, and yet I am "not a true European."
Many Israelis were born in America and Europe and yet they have more right to the occupied territories then the people who have been living their for generations. A
This is called "racism," and you could at least be consistent, too.
And another thing, you know precisely jack shit about the UK media it seems -- a deliberate campaign of misinformation indeed. Laughable.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Secularism and modernity aren?t a threat to Judaism, Christianity, or Islam. Neither are democracy nor capitalism. All you?re doing by even acknowledging this by advocating for a tepid response is in fact making the case for Bin Laden. It?s like putting someone in special ed class and telling them they?re not stupid or slow.
Ok. To begin with I did not state or, I believe, imply that "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" was a threat to "Judaism" or "Christianity" or "Islam." First, nowhere in my post do you find the words "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" or "judaism". Attacking arguments that aren't there does not help your side of the debate.
What I did say was that in Bin Laden's eyes and according to his position (note this is not MY view but is Bin Laden's) the American campaign represents the Christian crusading side of the ideological scenario of Christianity VS. Islam. This ideology Bin Laden uses to whip up support for Al-Qaeda and nothing helps support this ideology more than wars perpetrated by a piously Christian American president against an Islamic country like Afghanistan or Iraq. For someone (Bin Laden) who wants to see the Islamic world rise up and repel the west from its lands a war like this is a dream come true.
I also said that Saddam's Baathist regime was a threat to Bin Laden's desire for a fundamentalist Middle East because it is one of only a very few secular governments in the middle east and one that had repelled fundamentalists like Bin Laden when it came into power. Saddam Hussein is no friend of Bin Laden and I'm afraid people who believe he is have been suckered by propaganda about their "relationship" that has largely disappeared now because it is so untenable.
I don't believe that "secularism", as you call it, or modernity is a threat to Judaism, Christianity or Islam. The views I put forward in my above post are the views of Bin Laden as I see them. I am not "making the case" for Bin Laden but merely trying to understand the logic of his campaign. Without doing this we threaten ignorance and the perpetuation of these conflicts. Unfortunately, public ignorance of these issues and consequently the perpetuation of the ideological divide between the "christian" and the "muslim" world is in the interest of some parties on all sides of this conflict.
Your comment on "special ed class" is spurious.
Originally posted by Harald
The world according to Mika:
I was born in Yurrup, and yet I am "not a true European."
Many Israelis were born in America and Europe and yet they have more right to the occupied territories then the people who have been living their for generations.
You are an imposter.
Ask the Spanish why they drove the Arabs from their land. Arabs were there for generations. Unfortunately, you can't ask that question of the indigenous peoples of Egypt, or the other North African peoples. They no longer exist, or have the power to resist the sword of the Islamic empire.
Originally posted by Retrograde
Ok. To begin with I did not state or, I believe, imply that "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" was a threat to "Judaism" or "Christianity" or "Islam." First, nowhere in my post do you find the words "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" or "judaism". Attacking arguments that aren't there does not help your side of the debate.
Yes, you did imply that. When you talk about Bin Laden or other Islamic fundamentalists, that?s exactly what?s implied. If you can?t appreciate what Bin Laden stands for, or what he stands against, there?s no point in me even talking to you. I wont bother reading the rest of your post.
Originally posted by Retrograde
What I did say was that in Bin Laden's eyes and according to his position (note this is not MY view but is Bin Laden's) the American campaign represents the Christian crusading side of the ideological scenario of Christianity VS. Islam. This ideology Bin Laden uses to whip up support for Al-Qaeda and nothing helps support this ideology more than wars perpetrated by a piously Christian American president against an Islamic country like Afghanistan or Iraq. For someone (Bin Laden) who wants to see the Islamic world rise up and repel the west from its lands a war like this is a dream come true.
What this is is your view. Period. Unless you are Bin Laden it is your view. It may be you trying to pretend to show his view, but it is your view of his view. Thus, YOUR VIEW.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
Yes, you did imply that. When you talk about Bin Laden or other Islamic fundamentalists, that?s exactly what?s implied. If you can?t appreciate what Bin Laden stands for, or what he stands against, there?s no point in me even talking to you. I wont bother reading the rest of your post.
Mika, look, I know it is difficult to confront ideas that don't fit with your own and, for many, the easiest thing when they find the heat too much is, as they say, to "get out of the kitchen."
You may not bother reading the rest of my post but, you know, while I'm disappointed I'm also not much bothered. You see, this is an open forum and I know other people will and already have read this thread including my posts and can rely on their own rational powers to judge both sides of the debate.
edit: oh, and might I add that for someone who was so concerned with the question of "resolve" and how "America's resolve" is viewed in the Middle East you come across as someone who distinctly lacks resolve in this thread.
Originally posted by NoahJ
What this is is your view. Period. Unless you are Bin Laden it is your view. It may be you trying to pretend to show his view, but it is your view of his view. Thus, YOUR VIEW.
Well, NoahJ you do have a point here and I take it. I certainly am not Bin Laden and so the view I am expressing can in no way be the literal view of Bin Laden's himself.
But, to be fair, I was attempting to do what people do all the time: to try think from another person's vantage point (in everyday language, to "step into someone else's shoes"). This is clearly different from putting across a view that I espouse and claim is the truth and from which I measure my actions in the world.
This distinction is important (and one I'm afraid Mika misses) because if someone does in fact hold to the view that whatever I say can only be representative of myself and that I in fact can never understand or attempt to think from the viewpoint of another that person in fact ends up removing the very ground by which any of us can partake in a debate or argument at all.
So, yes, this is my attempt at imagining the way Bin Laden would react to this conflict, or as you put it, "my view of his view." But until someone else puts forth a more cogent view or until someone attempts to amend the view I have put forward it still stands as a view to be reckoned with rather than ignored. So please, why don't you give me your view of his view?
Originally posted by Retrograde
Ok. To begin with I did not state or, I believe, imply that "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" was a threat to "Judaism" or "Christianity" or "Islam." First, nowhere in my post do you find the words "modernity" or "democracy" or "capitalism" or "judaism". Attacking arguments that aren't there does not help your side of the debate.
What I did say was that in Bin Laden's eyes and according to his position (note this is not MY view but is Bin Laden's) the American campaign represents the Christian crusading side of the ideological scenario of Christianity VS. Islam. This ideology Bin Laden uses to whip up support for Al-Qaeda and nothing helps support this ideology more than wars perpetrated by a piously Christian American president against an Islamic country like Afghanistan or Iraq. For someone (Bin Laden) who wants to see the Islamic world rise up and repel the west from its lands a war like this is a dream come true.
I also said that Saddam's Baathist regime was a threat to Bin Laden's desire for a fundamentalist Middle East because it is one of only a very few secular governments in the middle east and one that had repelled fundamentalists like Bin Laden when it came into power. Saddam Hussein is no friend of Bin Laden and I'm afraid people who believe he is have been suckered by propaganda about their "relationship" that has largely disappeared now because it is so untenable.
I don't believe that "secularism", as you call it, or modernity is a threat to Judaism, Christianity or Islam. The views I put forward in my above post are the views of Bin Laden as I see them. I am not "making the case" for Bin Laden but merely trying to understand the logic of his campaign. Without doing this we threaten ignorance and the perpetuation of these conflicts. Unfortunately, public ignorance of these issues and consequently the perpetuation of the ideological divide between the "christian" and the "muslim" world is in the interest of some parties on all sides of this conflict.
Your comment on "special ed class" is spurious.
I have a feeling you could argue your case on this with Mika (and indeed anyone else with that type of "mindset") until the the 12th of Never (or the San Diego Chargers winning the Superbowl, whichever comes first) and never convince him/her of the validity of another point of view.
People like Mika and NoahJ seem to feel that if you have an insight into someone else's thinking, you must agree with their philosophy, a point of view which is not so much illogical as irrational beyond belief.
Many intelligence authorities and independant analysts agree with the views you put forward, but - using their 'logic' (sic) Mika and NoahJ would doubtless state that they must be in sympathy with bin Laden and Al Qaida, and ignore the fact that military and political strategists throughout history have often argued that to defeat an opponent, you must first understand their thinking.
And Mika, if you're online or you read this later, have a think on this.
When you start to talk about how great it would be to have "American values" all over the globe as you have done in another thread, do you mean the American values that led to My Lai, the values that lead to the grooming and arming of Osama bin Laden in the 1980's, that lead to the supply of biological agents to Iraq in the first place (ironically by the very man who now heads the Department of Defense).
Or maybe you mean the values that lead to the "ethnic cleansing" of the native American in the 19th century, or - to be more current - the American values that lead to over 27,000 firearms-related deaths in 2000.
Nearly every country and/or culture has dirt under its fingernails, so let's not pretend that any one culture or nation-state has a monoply on virtue, because that's just naive.
And just so I can establish my right to have a view on this subject: I'm a Jew born in England, my father is English, my mother was born in Calcutta, her parents were born in Burma and what is now Iran and her grandparents were born in Baghdad and Tehran. I'm not an Iraqi sympathiser and I do believe that Hussein is a megalomaniac; I do wish that we had more solid evidence before embarking on this route, but I also recognise that the likelihood is that we would never have been able to get a solid resolution from the UNSC; I believe that people like Hussein and bin Laden use the Palestinian issue as a smokescreen and a platform for propaganda, but I also believe that the question of peaceful co-existence needs to addressed in a meaningful and mature manner which seems to be beyond the somewhat limited mindsets of people like Sharon and Arafat.
What all of this makes me is a character that is able to recognise subtlety and complexity, you should open up your mind and try it sometime, as opposed to spouting reactionary, revisionist twaddle which makes you come across as a venal crypto-Nazi who probably thinks the Ku Klux Klan is too liberal.
Originally posted by Mark- Card Carrying FanaticRealist
..
You?ve been brain washed by the British and European media, and I feel sorry for you. Also, I really don?t care to get into an argument with you regards the self-evident. You read my previous post so you know exactly where I stand re American values. Your point about every nation and culture having dirt under its fingernail is self-annulling. Think on that. If you still have trouble following, I?ll elaborate.
Originally posted by mika_mk1984
You have to look at who was there. And No. I don?t consider first generation Yurropeans, people like Hassan and that imposter Harrald, to be real Europeans. Neither do they, going by their posts. And neither do I consider them professional protesters to be representative of real public opinion.
- I've got passable French
- I can whip up an aoli in the time it takes to seperate the yolk from the white
- I used to smoke black tobacco
- I really like Peter Greenaway's films
- I regard Macdonald's fine beefburger restaurants with horror and fear
Crikey Moses, chaps, how Yurrupean can you get?Now, Mika, you were born in Lithuania (am I right?) and grew up in Europe and North America, so it strikes me if I'm not European you'd better not have the sauce to come here and tell me you're a true citizen of the Middle East.
I wont contest that you are if you don't contest that I am.
Originally posted by Hassan i_Sabbah
.
.
Now, Mika, you were born in Lithuania (am I right?) and grew up in Europe and North America, so it strikes me if I'm not European you'd better not have the sauce to come here and tell me you're a true citizen of the Middle East.
I wont contest that you are if you don't contest that I am.
No, Hassan.
Yes I was born in Europe, in Lithuania, as you correctly remembered. But, and this is a BIG but, I consider myself a natural part of the Middle East by virtue of my identity as a Jew and son of Judah, and the ethnic/cultural heritage built in into that identity. Everything from language, to cultural traditions, to national folklore and mythology, to an identity with the land, is built in into that that identity. (In short, a whole civilization). So, to compare our situations as new immigrants is spurious and shallow, and therefore I cannot accept your analogy, or offer.