Islam: a Plan for World Domination?

[mawilson 2,133]

if theres anyone left in 100 years, still fighting, then yes they do deserve to call that land home...

That's the plan.

The settlement expansion strategy also worked well for Israel in the past,

I don't know why they stopped doing that. They are getting too wimpy

and pander to international opinion way too much.

[Logres 0]

Great Britain was on the winning side of WWI and had HUGE influence over the decisions of the 'League of Nations'

you view it as babysitting, I view it as imperialism...call it what you will

my point is that you might want to look at who was involved in the 'League of Nations' and question what their agendas were...also my point still stands that the people who inhabited the land had no say as to what was happening to their land (ie: they were not a part of the talks)

You earlier cited Great Britain as being the agressor in Palestine, and then implied they single-handedly decided to hand the land to the Jews without a thought for the then inhabitants of the land. This is simply inaccurate.

Obviously you may speculate about the influence and agenda of the British Empire nearly 100 years ago, although I notice you only post a few open-ended questions. What was the agenda, did it include their withdrawel in 1948?

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

You earlier cited Great Britain as being the agressor in Palestine, and then implied they single-handedly decided to hand the land to the Jews without a thought for the then inhabitants of the land. This is simply inaccurate.

Obviously you may speculate about the influence and agenda of the British Empire nearly 100 years ago, although I notice you only post a few open-ended questions. What was the agenda, did it include their withdrawel in 1948?

maybe britain didnt do it single handedly, but it was done...as for the agenda, i said this before...western cultural and economic expansion into the middle east...as for leaving in 1948, i dont know if this was planned, and i dont think it matters...by then the ball was already in their court

are you defending the view that a foreign power can just walk in and claim that there is a new country where one doesnt exist? i know its possible, but is it right?

drawing lines in the sand is bad enough, but migrating a group of people to live in this newly formed 'nation', while kicking out those who live there, to me, seems inhumane

Edited September 12, 2007 by babybluesusie

[Raspect 0]

Well, don't you just know everything?

Of course civilian casualties occur, its a sad reality of war. Any chance the enemy can, they will force you into a position to injure civilians. Then they twist the events out of context in an attempt to gain support.

If the media was sooo biased in our favor, why did they broadcast the Haditha killings, what about the five soldiers charged in the rape and murder of that 14 year old girl, Abu Ghraib, I can keep going. So don't worry, the media is not with-holding any of the horrible things from you.

Panel: U.S. Underreported Iraq Violence

WASHINGTON -- U.S. military and intelligence officials have systematically underreported the violence in Iraq in order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said

The panel pointed to one day last July when U.S. officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. "Yet a careful review of the reports for that single day brought to light 1,100 acts of violence," it said.

** Hence the media can only report on the stories they know about**

Here is the link to the full story

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6120601325.html

yeah, we all know how reliable the washington post is

No problems, maybe you missed the very first sentence of the article order to suit the Bush administration's policy goals, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group said

"10-member panel chaired by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) to again review U.S. policy and offer new recommendations

So really the Washington Post was posting THEIR findings, not their own. But no problems mate! you like that boo-yah

no worries mate!! http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wi...Figures,00.html

[Logres 0]

are you defending the view that a foreign power can just walk in and claim that there is a new country where one doesnt exist? i know its possible, but is it right?

No, when did I say that?

'Right' and 'Wrong' are subjective terms that the most brilliant minds in the history of Western philosophy have yet to agree on, so I think it is unlikely that I will be able to provide you with a conclusive answer.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

are you defending the view that a foreign power can just walk in and claim that there is a new country where one doesnt exist? i know its possible, but is it right?

No, when did I say that?

'Right' and 'Wrong' are subjective terms that the most brilliant minds in the history of Western philosophy have yet to agree on, so I think it is unlikely that I will be able to provide you with a conclusive answer.

I think you may be missing the obvious here – that in every other instance (I can think of) where a country was artificially created and the results imposed upon a native population in total disregard of the will of the people living under the new regime, it has been a disaster (i.e. Yugoslavia, India under the British Raj, good few African countries – including Rwanda)

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

are you defending the view that a foreign power can just walk in and claim that there is a new country where one doesnt exist? i know its possible, but is it right?

No, when did I say that?

'Right' and 'Wrong' are subjective terms that the most brilliant minds in the history of Western philosophy have yet to agree on, so I think it is unlikely that I will be able to provide you with a conclusive answer.

thats because they are not concrete terms, that apply differently depending on the situation...

in this situation, and in most, i believe that it is not right to do so

and no, you didn't say it, that's why i was asking...youre quick to criticize my view, but i want to know what you feel on the topic

Edited September 12, 2007 by babybluesusie

[mRx 16]

What if it was due to a good ole USA or Israeli bomb? It's ok then?

Of course each child lost is truely regrettable. No matter what the circumstances. But there is a distinct difference between the US dropping ordinance and a Jihadi blowing up his bongo in an open-air market.

The difference is simple. The civilian population is not the target of a "good ole USA" bomb. They are for the jihadi.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Wondering if the people on the ground see much difference between a terrorist attack and ‘collateral damage’…. Best intentions don’t really cut it if the result is the same… That’s part of the challenge of this sort of conflict IMO.

[mawilson 2,133]

Wondering if the people on the ground see much difference between a terrorist attack and ‘collateral damage’….

They usually don't. When Israel kills militants in "precision strikes" (which occasionally

miss their targets and kill bystanders), they call it "Israeli terror".

[Logres 0]

[and no, you didn't say it, that's why i was asking...youre quick to criticize my view, but i want to know what you feel on the topic

I have not criticised your view, only your argument and the accuracy of your portrayal of the history of my country.

[Logres 0]

are you defending the view that a foreign power can just walk in and claim that there is a new country where one doesnt exist? i know its possible, but is it right?

No, when did I say that?

'Right' and 'Wrong' are subjective terms that the most brilliant minds in the history of Western philosophy have yet to agree on, so I think it is unlikely that I will be able to provide you with a conclusive answer.

I think you may be missing the obvious here – that in every other instance (I can think of) where a country was artificially created and the results imposed upon a native population in total disregard of the will of the people living under the new regime, it has been a disaster (i.e. Yugoslavia, India under the British Raj, good few African countries – including Rwanda)

I didn't state any views, so I probably missed most things.

In each case given above, you would have walked away and left the administration of each country to it's inhabitants?

Be Seeing You!

[mRx 16]

Wondering if the people on the ground see much difference between a terrorist attack and ‘collateral damage’…. Best intentions don’t really cut it if the result is the same… That’s part of the challenge of this sort of conflict IMO.

You can't completely eliminate civilian casualities during war, but they can and have been greatly reduced. The US is fighting this by the book. Geneva Conventions, LOAC, ROE. Do the insurgents follow even the most basic rules of warfare? Well, they don't even wear a uniform distinguishing themselves as combatants.

Back to the original discussion....

Does the destruction differ between a hellfire missile and a carbomb? No. But again, we are not directly targeting civilians, they are.

[BabyBlueSusie 1]

I didn't state any views, so I probably missed most things.

In each case given above, you would have walked away and left the administration of each country to it's inhabitants?

Be Seeing You!

it is possible to assist without imperialising...it is also possible to find out what the people of that country would want, rather than imposing foreign influence upon them...there are other ways of dealing with things, than what has been done in these past examples

[Logres 0]

I didn't state any views, so I probably missed most things.

In each case given above, you would have walked away and left the administration of each country to it's inhabitants?

Be Seeing You!

it is possible to assist without imperialising...it is also possible to find out what the people of that country would want, rather than imposing foreign influence upon them...there are other ways of dealing with things, than what has been done in these past examples

All things are possible....... what are good examples of the non-imposing foreign power supporting a local government?