Attitudes towards Muslims in America

[Harsh_77 718]

I don't speak for terrorists and I don't defend them.

You defended them by saying US is at fault and they should not be muslim country. comm on dude dont flip flop...... this is the reason why non muslim ppl have problem with islam.

As per islam whatever they do all is justified even killing innocent babies, but if anyone else did anything to them muslims would be the first one to start crying injustices, we are minority, we are being oppressed.........

Dude wake up look at the reality...... you can claim as many times as you want islam is religion of peace but when you look around u islam is the cause of lot of fights all around the world.

[Harsh_77 718]

Not sure what this means but the people that ran the planes into the World trade center were willing to die for their cause

AND..... what was the cause???? Kill innocent ppl...before 9/11 US was not in Afgh nor in Iraq.

[Golden Gate 530]

You defended them by saying US is at fault and they should not be muslim country. comm on dude dont flip flop...... this is the reason why non muslim ppl have problem with islam.

As per islam whatever they do all is justified even killing innocent babies, but if anyone else did anything to them muslims would be the first one to start crying injustices, we are minority, we are being oppressed.........

Dude wake up look at the reality...... you can claim as many times as you want islam is religion of peace but when you look around u islam is the cause of lot of fights all around the world.

First of all, I am not a dude. I am saying that world politics isn't as simple as people make them. The U.S. has been involved in all kinds of military support to various people around the world, including dictatorships, for it's own financial gain and power. So, it can't act all innocent when things come back at them. I am American. I was born here and raised here. No one is justified in killing, as far as I am concerned. I don't believe in violence, I believe in peace. Putting all Muslims into one category is wrong. Vilifying a whole group of people will not bring peace to the world. I support people who help to bring peace, not war. Now, I think our conversation is done. I am not interested to talk to people who like to jump to conclusions about my comments and I can't really even understand what you are saying: "You defended them by saying US is at fault and they should not be muslim country" ???? I didn't say the U.S. was at fault. I say it takes two to tango. If you keep vilifying all Muslims, who make up a huge proportion of the population of the world, most of which live in Asia, you will create enemies. If that is what you want, that is what you will get.

[Golden Gate 530]

AND..... what was the cause???? Kill innocent ppl...before 9/11 US was not in Afgh nor in Iraq.

The U.S. supported the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war. The U.S. helped arm Osama Bin Laden during that time. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

George W. Bush went into Iraq to advance his own agenda. It had nothing to do with 9/11:

Edited October 8, 2011 by Golden Gate

[Dan and Judy 614]

AND..... what was the cause???? Kill innocent ppl...before 9/11 US was not in Afgh nor in Iraq.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden

Beliefs and ideologyMain article: Beliefs and ideology of Osama bin LadenAccording to former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who led the CIA's hunt for Osama bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader was motivated by a belief that U.S. foreign policy has oppressed, killed, or otherwise harmed Muslims in the Middle East,^[44] condensed in the phrase "They hate us for what we do, not who we are."

Bin Laden also said only the restoration of Sharia law would "set things right" in the Muslim world, and that alternatives such as "pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy" must be opposed.^[45] This belief, in conjunction with violent jihad, has sometimes been called Qutbism after being promoted by Sayyid Qutb.^[46] Bin Laden believed that Afghanistan, under the rule of Mullah Omar's Taliban, was "the only Islamic country" in the Muslim world.^[47] Bin Laden consistently dwelt on the need for violent jihad to right what he believed were injustices against Muslims perpetrated by the United States and sometimes by other non-Muslim states,^[48] the need to eliminate the state of Israel, and the necessity of forcing the United States to withdraw from the Middle East. He also called on Americans to "reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury", in an October 2002 letter.^[49]

Bin Laden's ideology included the idea that innocent civilians, including women and children, are legitimate targets of jihad.^[50][51] Bin Laden was anti-Semitic, and delivered warnings against alleged Jewish conspiracies: "These Jews are masters of usury and leaders in treachery. They will leave you nothing, either in this world or the next."^[52] Shia Muslims have been listed along with "heretics, [...] America, and Israel" as the four principal "enemies of Islam" at ideology classes of bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization.^[53]

Bin Laden opposed music on religious grounds,^[54] and his attitude towards technology was mixed. He was interested in "earth-moving machinery and genetic engineering of plants" on the one hand, but rejected "chilled water" on the other.^[55]

His viewpoints and methods of achieving them had led to him being designated as a terrorist by scholars,^[56][57] journalists from The New York Times,^[58][59] the BBC,^[60] and Qatari news station Al Jazeera,^[61] analysts such as Peter Bergen,^[62] Michael Scheuer,^[63] Marc Sageman,^[64] and Bruce Hoffman^[65][66] and he was indicted on terrorism charges by law enforcement agencies in Madrid, New York City, and Tripoli.^[67]

Bin Laden's overall strategy against much larger enemies such as the Soviet Union and United States was to lure them into a long War of Attrition in Muslim countries, attracting large numbers of jihadists who would never surrender. He believed this would lead to economic collapse of the enemy nation. Al-Qaeda manuals clearly outline this strategy.

Militant activity

Assuming the last two lines are true, we fell into his trap and inspite of the fact that he is dead we are still in the trap.

we've been over spending for decades, we still are and the enormous costs of these wars isn't helping.

[Robert&Karen 264]

I don't speak for terrorists and I don't defend them.

Edmund Burke said all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Do not allow evil to triumph. Do not do sit by and do nothing.

Not sure what this means but the people that ran the planes into the World trade center were willing to die for their cause

Too bad their efforts did not go to disease eradication or world peace. They'd be famous and we'd love them and what they stood for. Instead they are vilifed for anything they and their supporters stand for.

The suicide bomber didn't want to kill Iraqi children; they wanted to kill the imperialist U.S. soldier pigs who intermingled with their people.

If this does not make any father in any picture rise up an arms and request to get the #### out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and any country we have no business in, then there is no hope.

I agree.

So their children were only collateral damage. They have no qualms killing their own children. Cowards of the worst form. And if they want us out why don't they learn ho to police up their own trash?

[Golden Gate 530]

Home>> Articles

The Origin of the Clash of Civilizations

By Reda Benkirane

Among the many reflections on the events related to September 11, two of the most profound insights come from Christian thinkers who have focused their analyses essentially on the cultural aspect of the crisis.

René Girard, a French anthropologist from Stanford University, known for his Scapegoat Theory and his anthropology of violence and religion, sees in these events a "mimetic (mirror image) rivalry" of an unprecedented scale. According to Girard, the resistance to the current globalization process emerging from different parts of the world and the various Islamist armed actions against the US and the West are motivated not because of their intrinsic differences but because they are similar to what they fight against. "They fight us because they look more and more like us" René Girard would say. According to Girard, Bush and Bin Laden are "mimetic twins" who both want to have a global impact and reach a global audience. Both use the same religious terminology based on binary logic (Crusades/Jihad, Good against Evil, etc.). Yet even the profile of the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks against New York and Washington attests that they were totally assimilated into Western culture. Girard's insights, as an anthropologist influenced by Christian eschatology, alert us to the risk of uniformity and homogeneity rather than the risk of differences and divergence. The world is in danger of uniformity not of diversity… The same simplistic and Manichean logic is used by both Bush and Bin Laden in order to attract the attention and the support of Christians and Muslims worldwide. But humanity deserves a real alternative vision which reflects its plurality and which can overcome the current polarization of religions, civilizations and cultures.

Konrad Raiser, General Secretary of the World Council of Churches (Geneva), provides a complementary analysis of the same events. In his presentation at the WCC meeting on "Beyond 11 September: Assessing Global Implications" (29 November-2 December 2001), he argues that a "symbolic conflict" of a new nature has emerged. What we are seeing is a confrontation over "symbolic power," rather than a struggle for natural resources, trade routes or territories. The particular nature of this conflict is especially reflected in the very symbols used and destroyed on September 11. The way in which the conflict has been presented and justified, and the fact that it is happening in an Information Age, amplified and distorted by the mass media, explain partly why "our traditional analytical models are inadequate to understand the conflict and why theology and religious insights are needed". Raiser concluded his presentation by highlighting the need to develop "new tools" for a better understanding of the religious dimension of the present confrontation and also "to resist the tendency to turn religion into an ideology for struggle."

In order to address the crucial question of cultural diversity and the need to integrate "non-Euro-centric" models of "creative thinking," the success and the relevance of the concept of "war of civilizations" should be questioned. One of the most quoted theories proposed during the last decade to explain the current cultural challenge is Samuel Huntington's Clash of Civilizations, first introduced in his Foreign Affairs' article (1993) and later published in a book (1996). While many have heard about this theory of war of civilizations, very few observers know that the concept did not originate with American political scientist Samuel Huntington. He is not even the person who first coined the term "war of civilizations".

The first explicit mention of this concept came from Mahdi Elmandjra, a former Assistant Director General of UNESCO, President of the World Future Studies Federation and of Futuribles International (Paris), and member of the Club of Rome. Elmandjra, who teaches International Relations at the University of Rabat, published "the First Civilizational War" in 1991 referring to the Gulf war and the new "post-colonial" situation created after the end of the Cold War. The book was published in Arabic (1991), English and French (1992), and Japanese (2001). During the Gulf war, Elmandjra gave a seminal interview to the German newspaper Der Spiegel (allusively quoted in Huntington's book) where he introduced his own theory of the war of civilizations. In this interview, Elmandjra essentially stigmatized the Western fear of Islam, population growth in the South, and the growing importance of Confucianist societies. All these ingredients of Elmandjra's theory of "war of civilizations" were later included as basic assumptions in Huntington's thesis. It is instructive to know that this theory of "war of civilizations" initially was formulated as a "non-Euro-centric" point of view which denounced the bellicose perception of cultures and civilizations and which advocated increased recognition of the world's cultural diversity.

The problem with the application of Huntington's theory is that cultures and civilizations are now portrayed as playing the roles that nation-states played during the Cold War. Cultures and civilizations are seen as monolithic blocs acting on the geopolitical scene rather than as living and evolving organisms that need constantly to exchange and interact with their environment. A related concern is the political perception of religions, civilizations and cultures: even Islamist as well as Christian and Jewish "neo-fundamentalist" movements see themselves primarily as political actors rather than as spiritual movements. This brings to mind Girard's mimetic rivalry which is also denounced by Raiser in his concluding remarks on the "symbolic hegemony." Religions, civilizations and cultures should not be reduced to political entities and confrontations. Instead of "policing civilizations" as implied in Huntington's thesis, the world needs to "civilize politics". Political and economic analyses are not sufficient to comprehend the complexity of the world. Better understanding of the cultural and religious components could more adequately address the problem of present international disorder.

Furthermore, the fear of the Other is often based on the ignorance of the Other. Perhaps it is time in the West to learn more about Islam, about its spirituality, its arts, its poets, writers and scientists, and about its tolerance which has been demonstrated so many times - for example in Spain for 700 years and in the Ottoman empire until the beginning of the 20th century. There are also some universal issues - on political violence, arms race, poverty, illiteracy, pollution, pandemics, etc. - that transcend cultural differences and national borders and which must now be taught, learnt, discussed and shared by every citizen of the world. As stated by the Spanish writer Rodrigo de Zayas: "We must teach humanity to humanity".

Further readings :

Konrad Raiser, Beyond 11 September: Implications for the Churches, Beyond 11 September. Assessing Global Implications, Geneva, 29 November-2 December 2001. http://wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/international/symbolic.html

René Girard, What Is Occurring Today Is a Mimetic Rivalry on a Planetary Scale, Interview by Henri Tincq, Le Monde, 6 November2001, translation Jim Williams

http://theol.uibk.ac.at/cover/girard_le_monde_interview.html

Mahdi Elmandjra, Der erste Weltkrieg der Kulturen (This is the first civilizational war), in: "Der Spiegel", Hamburg, 11 February 1991.

http://www.elmandjra.org/der110291.jpg

Mahdi Elmandjra, Première guerre civilisationnelle, Casablanca, Toubkal, 1992.

http://www.elmandjra.org/livre1/Tablematiere.html

Samuel P. Huntington, The clash of civilizations, in: Foreign Affairs, Summer 1993, v72, n3.

http://www.alamut.com/subj/economics/misc/clash.html

Samuel P. Huntington, The clash of civilizations and the remaking of world order,

New York, Simon & Schuster, 1996.

"The conflict which broke out in August 1990 announced the advent of the post-colonial era. The beginning of hostilities set the stage for the first civilizational war. The Gulf war is but the first episode of a North-South conflict where the fundamental issue is basically of a cultural nature.

(…) I have said and written on many an occasion since September 12th, 1990 that what is taking place in the Gulf was not only a political, economic or military conflict, but above all, a cultural confrontation. Being a researcher in the prospective field, I have never ceased, for 15 years now, to warn the West against its socio-cultural ethnocentrism and the dangers it involved on the eve of the 21st century."

Mahdi Elmandjra, Futurist, The First Civilizational War (1992)

Book available on the Web at: http://www.elmandjra.org/Contents.htm

Reda Benkirane

My link

[Robert&Karen 264]

Posting entire articles like this and not just a link is a copyright violation. I don't know about VJ's TOS but you may want to simply post links with your comments. If the original author wants to get involved that is their call.

Muslims have been fighting with their neighbors long before the USA came about. Therefore, the USA is not the cause of the problem.

And here (Click here) is another opportunity for the people to demand to be free, or to roll over and remain enslaved.

[Golden Gate 530]

Thanks, I'll take note of that. I didn't realize, as I have seen others post articles on here as well.

People have been fighting each other all through history, even before Islam. I am not sure what your point is here.

Iranians did stand up and protest against their government and they were cracked down on by their government, and many people in many countries are standing up and protesting. It seems what you are suggesting is that everyone take up arms, but I am not sure if that is what you are saying or not. If you look at Libya, they did take up arms and they ended up needing help from outside.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Posting entire articles like this and not just a link is a copyright violation.

Really?

Blah Blah Blah. I know I hated Wikipedia for a reason:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copy-paste

Edited October 10, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Dan and Judy 614]

Is this a copyright violation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copy-paste

Wikipedia:Copy-paste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For information about cut and paste moves, see WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.Shortcuts:

WP:COPYPASTE

WP:C-PIn 99.9% of cases, you may not copy-paste text from other sources into Wikipedia (short quotations aside), because it would violate copyright and/or constitute plagiarism. If you think your case is the rare exception, read on – but remember that even in the cases where copyright is not a problem, it is probably still better to write the article yourself in your own words, and just cite the source you want to copy from.

But I'm just trying to be helpful/get things started. We appreciate your good intentions, but copy-pasting text is almost never helpful. For this reason there is a procedure for speedily deleting copyright violations. Instead, write the article in your own words, and cite the sources you rely on.

Contents

• 1 Can I copy-paste text to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?
• 2 But surely I can copy from THIS?
• 3 Can I copy-paste if I change the text a little bit?
• 4 What about quotes?
• 5 How about copy-pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?
• 6 Notes

[edit] Can I copy-paste text to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?

CopyrightAs a general rule, DO NOT COPY-PASTE TEXT FROM OTHER WEBSITES. (There are a few limited exceptions, and a few words as part of a properly cited and clearly attributed quotation is OK.)

- Thank youMain page: Wikipedia:FAQ/CopyrightAs a general rule, DO NOT COPY-PASTE TEXT FROM OTHER WEBSITES.

• There are very few websites (and other sources) from which text can be copy-pasted without violating copyright – cases where the text is in the public domain or uses a Wikipedia-compatible license. (Even then, you have to acknowledge that you are copying; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) Copyright does not need to be asserted – if the source says nothing about licensing or copyright, you must treat it as copyrighted. If you think your source may qualify for copying, have a look here for more details, and ask for confirmation at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.
• If you own the previously published material or have permission to reproduce it, permission must be verified. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

[edit] But surely I can copy from THIS?

As a general rule, DO NOT COPY-PASTE TEXT FROM OTHER WEBSITES. This includes

• Charities, non-profit organisations, schools, etc.
• Websites without a copyright notice. If a work does not have a copyright notice, that does not mean that it may be freely used: if in doubt, assume you cannot use it.^[1]

Note: even if you work for or represent an institution, you cannot copy-paste text from it without officially clarifying permissions with Wikipedia. If you have the authority to do that, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note though that text from organisational websites often needs substantial re-writing in any case in order to make it encyclopedic – it must not read like an advertisement.

[edit] Can I copy-paste if I change the text a little bit?

Further information: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasingNo. It can be tempting to think that if you copy-paste the text and then change it a little bit, that then you're okay. For example you might change "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit prized for its nearly clear juice" to "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit appreciated for its almost clear juice". Unfortunately, this sort of superficial change is not enough: you must write the article in your own words, and then cite the sources you rely on. If the way in which a source has said something is important, use a quotation, including quote marks and a clear attribution in the text (eg According to John Doe, "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit prized for its nearly clear juice").

[edit] What about quotes?

Main page: Wikipedia:QuotationsBrief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and clearly marked as a quote. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited even if correctly cited.

[edit] How about copy-pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?

Main page: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia The edit summary field appears above the "Save page" button.Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary. Original content contributed by users can be freely used, but only if you recognise the original author – if you don't, this violates their copyright. If you have copied text but forgotten to use the edit summary, this can be easily corrected. You can make a dummy edit by making an inconsequential change to the article—such as adding a blank line to the end of the article—and link to the source article in edit summary then. A note such as "content copied from source article on 1 January 2011" works fine.

• However, if you just want to change the title of an article do not copy-paste – use the move tool or make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead.

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Most websites (and other sources) are automatically protected by copyright under rules such as the Berne Convention, even if the author did not apply for copyright or place a copyright notice in their work.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copy-paste&oldid=453439973" Categories:

• Wikipedia information pages
• Wikipedia copyright
• Wikipedia quick introductions

Personal tools

• Log in / create account

Namespaces

• Project page
• Discussion

Variants

Views

• Read
• Edit
• View history

Actions

Search

[/url]

Navigation

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link

Print/export

• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version

Languages

• Հայերեն

• This page was last modified on 1 October 2011 at 22:46.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
• Contact us

[Golden Gate 530]

Is this a copyright violation?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copy-paste

Wikipedia:Copy-paste

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, search For information about cut and paste moves, see WP:How to fix cut-and-paste moves.This is an information page that describes communal consensus on some aspect of Wikipedia norms and practices. While it is not a policy or guideline itself, it is intended to supplement or clarify other Wikipedia practices and policies. Please defer to the relevant policy or guideline in case of inconsistency between that page and this one.Shortcuts:

WP:COPYPASTE

WP:C-PIn 99.9% of cases, you may not copy-paste text from other sources into Wikipedia (short quotations aside), because it would violate copyright and/or constitute plagiarism. If you think your case is the rare exception, read on – but remember that even in the cases where copyright is not a problem, it is probably still better to write the article yourself in your own words, and just cite the source you want to copy from.

But I'm just trying to be helpful/get things started. We appreciate your good intentions, but copy-pasting text is almost never helpful. For this reason there is a procedure for speedily deleting copyright violations. Instead, write the article in your own words, and cite the sources you rely on.

Contents

• 1 Can I copy-paste text to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?
• 2 But surely I can copy from THIS?
• 3 Can I copy-paste if I change the text a little bit?
• 4 What about quotes?
• 5 How about copy-pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?
• 6 Notes

[edit] Can I copy-paste text to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else?

CopyrightAs a general rule, DO NOT COPY-PASTE TEXT FROM OTHER WEBSITES. (There are a few limited exceptions, and a few words as part of a properly cited and clearly attributed quotation is OK.)

- Thank youMain page: Wikipedia:FAQ/CopyrightAs a general rule, DO NOT COPY-PASTE TEXT FROM OTHER WEBSITES.

• There are very few websites (and other sources) from which text can be copy-pasted without violating copyright – cases where the text is in the public domain or uses a Wikipedia-compatible license. (Even then, you have to acknowledge that you are copying; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism.) Copyright does not need to be asserted – if the source says nothing about licensing or copyright, you must treat it as copyrighted. If you think your source may qualify for copying, have a look here for more details, and ask for confirmation at Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems.
• If you own the previously published material or have permission to reproduce it, permission must be verified. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.

[edit] But surely I can copy from THIS?

As a general rule, DO NOT COPY-PASTE TEXT FROM OTHER WEBSITES. This includes

• Charities, non-profit organisations, schools, etc.
• Websites without a copyright notice. If a work does not have a copyright notice, that does not mean that it may be freely used: if in doubt, assume you cannot use it.^[1]

Note: even if you work for or represent an institution, you cannot copy-paste text from it without officially clarifying permissions with Wikipedia. If you have the authority to do that, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. Note though that text from organisational websites often needs substantial re-writing in any case in order to make it encyclopedic – it must not read like an advertisement.

[edit] Can I copy-paste if I change the text a little bit?

Further information: Wikipedia:Close paraphrasingNo. It can be tempting to think that if you copy-paste the text and then change it a little bit, that then you're okay. For example you might change "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit prized for its nearly clear juice" to "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit appreciated for its almost clear juice". Unfortunately, this sort of superficial change is not enough: you must write the article in your own words, and then cite the sources you rely on. If the way in which a source has said something is important, use a quotation, including quote marks and a clear attribution in the text (eg According to John Doe, "The apple is a crisp, crunchy fruit prized for its nearly clear juice").

[edit] What about quotes?

Main page: Wikipedia:QuotationsBrief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and clearly marked as a quote. Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited even if correctly cited.

[edit] How about copy-pasting from one Wikipedia article to another?

Main page: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia The edit summary field appears above the "Save page" button.Yes, you can copy parts of one Wikipedia article into another, but you must link to the source article in your edit summary. Original content contributed by users can be freely used, but only if you recognise the original author – if you don't, this violates their copyright. If you have copied text but forgotten to use the edit summary, this can be easily corrected. You can make a dummy edit by making an inconsequential change to the article—such as adding a blank line to the end of the article—and link to the source article in edit summary then. A note such as "content copied from source article on 1 January 2011" works fine.

• However, if you just want to change the title of an article do not copy-paste – use the move tool or make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves instead.

[edit] Notes

1. ^ Most websites (and other sources) are automatically protected by copyright under rules such as the Berne Convention, even if the author did not apply for copyright or place a copyright notice in their work.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Copy-paste&oldid=453439973" Categories:

• Wikipedia information pages
• Wikipedia copyright
• Wikipedia quick introductions

Personal tools

• Log in / create account

Namespaces

• Project page
• Discussion

Variants

Views

• Read
• Edit
• View history

Actions

Search

[/url]

Navigation

• Main page
• Contents
• Featured content
• Current events
• Random article
• Donate to Wikipedia

Interaction

• Help
• About Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Recent changes
• Contact Wikipedia

Toolbox

• What links here
• Related changes
• Upload file
• Special pages
• Permanent link

Print/export

• Create a book
• Download as PDF
• Printable version

Languages

• Հայերեն

• This page was last modified on 1 October 2011 at 22:46.
• Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of use for details.
  Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
• Contact us

[Golden Gate 530]

Why The Uprisings Now?

"...Following some unrest and protests in the country, Saudi Arabia recently banned all protests. It is one of the most extremist of regimes in the region, but enormously backed by the West. The authoritarian nature of Saudi rule is therefore accommodated and even supported by Western leaders (though despised by Western people in general). As the BBC recently reported, the ban announcement was accompanied by a 15% pay rise for state employees plus other benefits and funds for various groups — in effect, attempting to bribe or pacify the population, reducing their need to protest."

[Harsh_77 718]

The U.S. supported the Mujahideen during the Soviet-Afghan war. The U.S. helped arm Osama Bin Laden during that time. http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html

George W. Bush went into Iraq to advance his own agenda. It had nothing to do with 9/11:

Yea I have read this argument over and over and it is a fact that US helped Osma and supported a faction to fight against soviet... ok It was their need, they paid hundreds and thousands of dollars to Osama and his buddies and who knows how much they pocketed from those deals.

So Osama and his buddies were fighting a far and US supported them, after the war was it US's responsibility to continue giving aide to them?

Are you serious.....???

Once they were out and did not help them anymore is that why Osama and his buddies wanted to force tha sharia law on ppl of Afghan? Were they trying to help the Afghan ppl or punish them coz US was not supporting them?

Not allowing ppl to get an education, no allowing industry to setup, not allowing the economic growth, were Osama and his buddies helping Afghan kids, women and younger generation?

Get real.......as US is not so innocent nor are Osama and his buddies.

[Harsh_77 718]

Thanks, I'll take note of that. I didn't realize, as I have seen others post articles on here as well.

People have been fighting each other all through history, even before Islam. I am not sure what your point is here.

Iranians did stand up and protest against their government and they were cracked down on by their government, and many people in many countries are standing up and protesting. It seems what you are suggesting is that everyone take up arms, but I am not sure if that is what you are saying or not. If you look at Libya, they did take up arms and they ended up needing help from outside.

So I dont understand this part, some muslims were not happy with how US was handling the foreing policy, they make a plan hijack plane run into buildings full of ppl killing hundreds, thousands of innocent unarmed ppl.

Some other would set-up explosives on bus and trains killing innocent ppl going about their daily routine.

These same muslims see some oppresive govt like Iran is cracking on the muslims and is not letting allowing the majority voice to be heard, why are these same muslims not going and hijacking a plane in Iran and running into a building nor planting a explosive on train or bus there?

should they not go and help them? or they only fight the non muslim govt and muslim govt can dole out as many attrocities it wants on its citizens?