Muslims starting boycot against Denmark.

[Huma]

I don't agree on that this thread was closed due to any particular member here. If it was, I think it was more because of me than of the other person I discussed the subject with.

I didn't say things in the best way I can. it reminds me that rage belongs even to one that are trying to eliminate them. so, in response to the war-rage in some level present in this thread, I chose antiwar-rage, which goes into opposite extrem.

I take back the part I called a member here a liar and sinner, I apologize to him and hope he can now believe that I hold nothing toward him personally. If we really have freedom of speech and maybe some space for mistakes, the aftermath of the thread closure could be ended here.
__________________________________________________ ___________

back on topic, I think it falls on one question: could violence be considerded as commotion of a group of people?

Ideally, I will say: no. we would always be conscious as individuals and choose our actions independently. In this sense, there is no such thing as "muslims are trying to get back at west". it would be too ignoring and inadequate to describe the situation. Although maybe millions are out there hostile towards "west", they are aginst different persons with different reasons. There are lots muslims hate other muslims, could I describe it as "muslims are trying to get back at itself."? same appliable to all groups.

Sadly, neither all people are thinking independently nor we are in control of ourselves at all times. So someone might(or already did) get this concept of "they never offend me, but they are sided with people who offend my side/country/religion, so, this gives me right to hurt them." To be honest, I observe this behavior on both "muslims" and "west". Maybe some are worse or better but, ~khem, beside the point.

You may say I am defending the side of "muslims", but I was trying to argue what's qulified as "just". IMO, saying "muslims are trying to get back at west." is in same problem with "west are trying to humiliate muslims by a cartoon".

[Only-now]

The reaction to the newspaper pictures is a perfect example of how the extremist muslim community will use something that is NOT related to the United States, to show their anger towards us. They try to hide behind something that looks like an offense against them, when in fact they are only lessening this fact with their reaction.

The fact that they are somehow linking the United States with this cartoon, when we have nothing to do with it gives a perfect example of how they are using this as an excuse to "hate" us even more.

No one was trying to humiliate them, because 1) They should not take a cartoon so seriously, otherwise they do not have that much faith in their religion if they let a cartoon affect them this much 2) There is actually some truth in what the cartoon was portraying..because currently the muslim religion IS the one that embraces those who use suicide bombing as a tactic. There is ALWAYS some truth in stereotyping.

Also, to hit on that point about them not getting so upset over it. Lets look at that further...shall we? First of all, you have to ask yourself "What is a fundamentalist?" They are people who strongly believe in their religion, and interpret it completely literally (and in the muslim sense, murder non-believers because of this). Thus, the fact that they are taking this cartoon so seriously CANNOT be because their religion was degraded, or insulted. This would undermine what they stand for in the first place, because it would be showing that they really do not have as much faith in their religion as the definition implies. So, if they hold to the defintion, then they are just using this as an excuse to "yell" at the west, even countries that had nothing to do with it. Thus, it has to be proven that they have only hijacked this religion, to use its violent teachings (if interpreted as a fundamentalist) when in fact they do not care this much about it, and thus get upset like so and use it against us.

If that happens to not be the case, then they ARE fundamentalists, who take the religion too seriously (thus resulting in terrorism and violent protest) and are thus taking this cartoon too seriously, while also getting back at us.

Sorry if that is hard to understand, a fire drill interrupted my thoughts, and I didn't really get a chance to organize them. I think they are easy to understand, and whether belief in their religion is part of this or not, they are STILL using this to get to us, for NO reason.

~Kiva

[unregistered user]

[Iran]

I'm going to reminisce in some of Darkslash's [02-20-2006 12:34 PM] post a sec... ... ...And as well as a few news articles that I've read that basically says.... "Should Iran continue to resume uranium enriched depositories for small-scale civil purposes and not for nuclear weapons as they've claimed...?"

(Noted: as of 2003)...

"Uranium Enrichment Plant at Natanz: Their capacity is far larger than needed for a nuclear weapon program, supporting Iran's statement that the facility is aimed at producing low enriched uranium for nuclear power reactors. Nonetheless, such a facility could use a relatively small fraction of its capacity, say 10,000 SWU per year, to make enough highly enriched uranium for three nuclear weapons a year, while using the remaining capacity to produce low enriched uranium. In addition, if a country can make an enrichment plant of this size, it can make enough machines to outfit another secret enrichment plant with a capacity of 10,000 SWU per year involving several thousand machines."

(Noted: as of 2005 - Current)...

"Israeli threats to attack Iran.
In December 2005, the Sunday Times claimed that military sources in Israel were order to plan for possible strikes on uranium enrichments sites in Iran in March 2006, based on Israeli intelligence estimates that Iran was getting to the point of being able to build nuclear weapons in two to four years later. It was claimed that the special forces command was in the highest stage of readiness for an attack (state G) in December.

Israel is estimated to have between 200-400 nuclear weapons and well developed missile delivery systems."

(Key Note: Israel has the most advanced nuclear weapons and missile delivery systems in the Middle East.)

Now I'm sure that Kiva, Darkslash, I and a few other(s) agree that given the underdeveloped nature of countries like Iran, shouldn't possess such things unless they could actually prove that they wouldn't explode over such nominal things like I dunno... cartoons. But if they could say... (and didn't seem doubtful otherwise) ..."It will be only used for civil conveyance and not to be used for mass-destructive weaponry..." But with their type of government for the time being, I doubt they'll give us that reassurance that we so desperately need. It isn't my say whether or not Israel should take tactical-use-of-actions like that, however it may be in everyone's best interest that they don't. I'm still hoping that Iran will shut-down UEPN for now until they realize what kind of power that they truly have... ?

[Darkslash]

Iran doesn't even need nuclear power to begin with -- they're burning off their natural gas deposits at the wells.

[unregistered user]

/^ ... On a more diplomatical format: ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060221/...ear_iran_dc_16 ) .

[Huma]

I have one question so desirably to ask: how could some people feel so unsecure when they not only have the best weaponry in the world but also consider their deeds just and defensive?

I would also like an exact reason why muslims should "hate" U.S. or "west"?

if Islamism, as someone so richly refer to as a religion "murder non-believers", there are hundreds of countries disbelieving islamism. They wouldn't be so picky about their target, now would they

[unregistered user]

"Because we feel, threatened!" Fear is a form of cowardice. What better way for the cowardly to become the eventful, to levy fear. Isn't it obvious, Huma? "We hate because we're taught to hate." The Muslim world isn't soley to blame. If you were to be put in their shoes, what would you think about the Western civilization - and - contrariwise to that. What would they think about themselves in our shoes? There are two sides to everything; but we continually only see one.

[Huma]

inevitability --- I guess that's the side I refuse to see. Is humanity really that perfect in my mind to blind me of what already happened? I think no. pathetic it is, but the only thing I can do is to ask questions.

I like your speech.

[unregistered user]

Yes, you're correct, Darkslash.

Iran has around 126 billion barrels of proven oil reserves about 10% of the world's total, and has the world's second largest proven natural gas reserves.

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Now I'm sure that Kiva, Darkslash, I and a few other(s) agree that given the underdeveloped nature of countries like Iran, shouldn't possess such things unless they could actually prove that they wouldn't explode over such nominal things like I dunno... cartoons. But if they could say... (and didn't seem doubtful otherwise) ..."It will be only used for civil conveyance and not to be used for mass-destructive weaponry..." But with their type of government for the time being, I doubt they'll give us that reassurance that we so desperately need.

Iran repetitiously threatens to wipe Israelis off the face of the Map, including to deny their existence. Without doubt, they cry for supremacy. What would they do with some ICBMs/(WMD), oh no, not the government nor the civil attest, but with local militia that would put some people's to rest. Some agree that the "War on Terror" is WWIII, if this is so, there's a long way to go. "United we shall stand, or together we shall fall." Either way, we shall face it "together" all in all...

[Only-now]

I think that the extremist hate the west because of what we stand for. We are a Christian nation, and their religion teaches that you must kill those who are not muslim. Obviously, the people who are considered fundamentalist will follow through with this. They do not like our way of life, how we treat women, or money, how we run our government etc. It isn't like the United States is the only target.It just happens to be that we are the most powerful nation in the world, the leader of this fight against them, and the more influential in western life, so it is obvious that they would choose us as their main target. They are also against Canada, all of Western Europe (evident in Denmark, the Madrid bombing, London bombing, etc).

Why would we be threatened? Just because we are the most powerful nation in the world, with the best weapons doesn't mean that we can protect all of our interests from attack. We don't have the ability to shoot down nuclear missles (yet), so it is still possible that we could be attacked by them. Have you thought of the rest of the world? Israel is our ally, and we want to protect them. If Iran is TOTALLY against them, and has threatned them like Sonkakee mentioned (which they have, because they are Muslim extremists), then why shouldn't we be upset? We don't want a government that is THAT extreme and crazy to possess the most powerful weapons in the world. Nuclear weapons are not just "toys" or something to not worry about. It isn't like the United States is the only country that is worried about it. I believe that the world community is also with us on this issue, and against Iran.

I think it is very obvious why extremist Muslims hate the west, and I think it is obvious why Iran should not have nuclear weapons.

[Utora]

Dostal - More than 100 dead in revenge attacks; 7 U.S. soldiers killed

Ever heard of the Geneva Convention? It'd be really great if both sides here obeyed the laws stated but I don't think.... you know..... beheading and all their little religious outbreaks apply to the Geneva Convention here. They've screwed over any terms of war. I'll also note that just because they're being barbaric doesn't mean we have to be either - but I'm stating that there are other ways to this. What's that city they got right now, and we won't send troops in because they have hostages? I say we send in some planes, and drop in pounds of pig blood all over that area. Get a little butcher factory for pigs a few yards away. Hey why don't yall come on over for my steakout at Bahgdad! BLT's round house -

The laws of their religion teaches them to decieve and to lie to the infdel. Who is the infedel? Everyone BUT them. And then us infedel's try to start a new government over there, or try to establish peace? They're told, they live by the law that you are to decieve the infedel, to lie to them and to trick them to bring glory to their God.

You know - whatever that special title is for the priest of their religion - he says the man to kill the artist or creator of those cartoons gets money, jewlery, cars women yadda yadda it can go on and on. Our object needs to be to win, not to compromise with them. Yes compromising may bring win but look at the platform now -

[Only-now]

I agree. They are NOT civilized fighters, and that doesn't mean we have to march towards each other in lines and shoot muskets.

The United States, and most other civilized countries, do NOT try to kill civilians, take "hostages", cut off people's heads, etc. The enemy however, DOES try all of these tactics, yet we are forced to only respond within our limits. We are playing by rules that the other "team" doesn't have to, and I think that there should be a creative side to this war. We should try things that fight against the very essence of what they fight for. We SHOULD use their religion against them.

Like Utora said, drop pigs blood on them because that "contaminates" you in their religion. I actually heard of a commander who had his soldiers dip their bullets in pigs blood, though I think that was for some type of firing squad. I think we should do the same, and let them know about it. If they want to hold up in a mosque, then we tell them to come out. If they decide not to, then we level the entire mosque, or maybe threaten to bomb Mecca, etc. Those are all just ideas, but it really gets tiring ya know?

~Kiva!

[unregistered user]

Originally posted by Sonkakee
Iran repetitiously threatens to wipe Israelis off the face of the Map, including to deny their existence. Without doubt, they cry for supremacy.

In October 2005, he made remarks to domestic audiences agreeing with Ayatollah Khomeini's statement that the occupying regime in [Israel/Palestineshould] be wiped off the map, citing in his speech that the regime of the Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Soviet Union as a State and Saddam Hussein's government of Iraq, had been wiped off the map.

On December 8, 2005, he made remarks doubting the Holocaust though a week later, on December 14, he made a similar statement no longer literally denying the Holocaust.

These remarks are generally considered to be in line with his populist voting base - 19% of voters chose him in the first round of the 2005 presidential election.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad claims that the remarks have been mistranslated and misinterpreted in the Western media, and that his aim is only to support democracy in Palestine.

Independently of whether or not his remarks were misinterpreted, the international reaction to his perceived statements was extremely negative.

Seema Mustafa in the Asian Age claimed that Ahmadinejad's remarks relating to Israel and the Holocaust are now used a major reason for an attack against Iran.

[Iraq/Follow Up: Utora - 02-23-2006 08:15 PM] ( http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1657999 ) .