How to Stop the Suicide Bombings

[islamirama]

who the heck is samuel p. huntington anyways (sounds like a westerner...hrm)? sheesh. who the heck said the west won the world? thats a little far fetched.

i really don't like how this hints that the 'west' is the definite caause of all of the problems in the world today. thats rubbish.

like i said nothing going on in the foreign policies in this world right now is unique. all of this has happened time and time again way before there even was a 'west'

Samuel Phillips Huntington (born April 18, 1927) is a controversial US political scientist known for his analysis of the relationship between the military and the civil government, his investigation of coups d'etat, his thesis (inspired by Polish scientist Feliks Koneczny) that the central political actors of the 21st century will be civilizations rather than nation-states and, most recently, for his views on US immigration. He graduated from Yale and received his Ph.D. from Harvard. As an advisor to Lyndon Johnson and in an influential 1968 article, he justified heavy bombardment of the countryside of South Vietnam as a means to drive the peasants and supporters of the Viet Cong into urban areas. Huntington also served as co-author on the report, "The Governability of Democracies", that was issued by the Trilateral Commission in 1976. More recently, he garnered widespread attention for his analysis of threats posed to the United States by modern-day immigration. He is a professor at Harvard University. Huntington came to prominence as a scholar in the 1960s with the publication of Political Order in Changing Societies, a work that challenged the conventional view of modernization theorists that economic and social progress would bring about stable democracies in recently decolonized countries.

• "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."

• Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq but not for Israel; free trade is the elixir of economic growth but not for agriculture; human rights are an issue for China but not with Saudi Arabia; aggression against oil-owning Kuwaitis is massively repulsed but not against non-oil-owning Bosnians. Double standards in practice are the unavoidable price of universal standards of principle. (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 184)

• "In the emerging world of ethnic conflict and civilizational clash, Western belief in the universality of Western culture suffers three problems: it is false; it is immoral; and it is dangerous...Imperialism is the necessary logical consequence of universalism." (The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, p. 310)

The points he made above seems to ring true if you look around us.

 

[Kashnowe]

Hypocrisy, double standards, and "but nots" are the price of universalist pretensions. Democracy is promoted but not if it brings Islamic fundamentalists to power; nonproliferation is preached for Iran and Iraq but not for Israel

democracy doesn't leave room for 'but nots' if so then it is something else by another name. logically speaking i'm sure the 'west' didn't intend for a chrisitian leader to rise in a democratic iraq....its pretty much a given that the leader will be muslim.....yep......what we have seen in most predominately muslim countries is leaders who may be muslim but do not act muslim or rule in a just way.

and to be fair. what we see in most western countries is not hardly christian values. but there is a much larger understanding of basic human rights which is comepletely logical and should be considered so by any intelligent, educated, God-fearing person on this earth.

we are all equally guilty.

organized violence is how almost all countires gained ther land....

i'm semi convinced that the term organized violence is an oxy moron.

 

[islamirama]

democracy doesn't leave room for 'but nots' if so then it is something else by another name. logically speaking i'm sure the 'west' didn't intend for a chrisitian leader to rise in a democratic iraq....its pretty much a given that the leader will be muslim.....yep......what we have seen in most predominately muslim countries is leaders who may be muslim but do not act muslim or rule in a just way.

and to be fair. what we see in most western countries is not hardly christian values. but there is a much larger understanding of basic human rights which is comepletely logical and should be considered so by any intelligent, educated, God-fearing person on this earth.

we are all equally guilty.

organized violence is how almost all countires gained ther land....

i'm semi convinced that the term organized violence is an oxy moron.

Most leaders in muslim countries are protecting their own throne and don't care about their people, and most of those leaders also suck up to US if they are not puppet regimes like khazai of afghan and new gov't of iraq. US puts friendly puppet regimes up to serve it's national interest. which is why Most muslims hate their leaders and the west becuase they both are in the same bed.

It's true many christians don't follow christian values, but you have neo-cons that are running the show, not these christians who don't follow their faith but still try to be good. Bush himself said he talks to God and he is a devout christian and he will bring crusade to the middle east. He is not only making the the world, and esp. muslims, hate him and the west but he is also making unsafe for americans in the world as well. and this is said none other than experts in the west who criticise him and his blundering ways.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Can I inject a question into the middle of this discussion, please?



This question is to those who believe that the west, in particular the USA, has at least sme culpability in the violence that has produced suicide bombings: Do you even want to stop the present suicide bombings?


I ask that as a serious question. I used to think that of course the answer would be "yes". "We hate the suicide bombings." "Suicide bombings make no sense." "Suicide bombings only kill innocent people." "Suicide bombings are not indicative of true Islam."

But after reading some of the responses on this thread, I seems that some would justify the use of suicide bombings as a means to an end. And that is what gives rises to my question. I wonder if maybe there are some here who see them as actually a good weapon of attack, or at least a necessary evil that cannot be/should not be stopped?

 

[Muslim Knight]

Do you even want to stop the present suicide bombings?

You have been sometime with us here at LI. Do you see anyone advocating suicide bombing? When you go through the Basic of Islam section, do you even read the slightest mention of God's command for the Muslims to go blow themselves up at the first chance they get?

Tell us your experience with us here so far.

 

[Grace Seeker]

You have been sometime with us here at LI. Do you see anyone advocating suicide bombing? When you go through the Basic of Islam section, do you even read the slightest mention of God's command for the Muslims to go blow themselves up at the first chance they get?

Tell us your experience with us here so far.

As I said in asking the question. I would have thought that the answer would be a resounding NO to suicide bombings. But in reading this thread I see some (by no means all, but some) who seem to be attempting to justify them.

When the quesiton is asked, how to stop them and the answer is, its the USA's fault that they are going on, that may be true, but it doesn't answer the question. And it makes me wonder if some don't want to answer the question, because they feel that they are indeed justified and do not need to be stopped.

 

[islamirama]

Can I inject a question into the middle of this discussion, please?



This question is to those who believe that the west, in particular the USA, has at least sme culpability in the violence that has produced suicide bombings: Do you even want to stop the present suicide bombings?


I ask that as a serious question. I used to think that of course the answer would be "yes". "We hate the suicide bombings." "Suicide bombings make no sense." "Suicide bombings only kill innocent people." "Suicide bombings are not indicative of true Islam."

But after reading some of the responses on this thread, I seems that some would justify the use of suicide bombings as a means to an end. And that is what gives rises to my question. I wonder if maybe there are some here who see them as actually a good weapon of attack, or at least a necessary evil that cannot be/should not be stopped?

I know many non-muslims on here may disagree with me but then again i don't expect much since their source of information is the US media which btw is under gov't control at times of war.

1. suicide bombing is bad should not be done.
2. US engages in this act as well, but uses locals as guine pigs (See here)
3. when you brutially oppress people, rape, torture, murder, etc (abu gharib just one example), and leave little room for them to breathe then this is the result. This is the result under occupation when the oppressed have no other means to fight back, "give me liberty or give me death"?
4. Despite what you or i may think or say, those people over there don't give dam cuz they don't have the luxury we have and they will do what they deem right as a desperate attempt to free themselves.

 

[Kashnowe]

well before the us occupied iraq there was sadam hussein who killed, raped and tortured whomever he pleased for any and no rerason at all. people are supposed to look up to their leaders. and children who were during the first gulf war are now in their 20s and 30s all they have seen in their country from their leadership is hate and violence. it only makes sense that they a re now suicide bombers. hate breeds hate. and america is not to blame for any suicide bombers. people are responisble for their own twisted fates. unfortunately the reality is so distorted for some that they honstly can not see any other way.

to me that is extremely say and unfortunate.

and i feel offended when you speak of the west so broadly. speak about bush fine. or cheney fine. but unfortunately half of america didn't even vote at all and once we do vote an official into office theres little we can do if they decide to run amuck and invoke policy we as a people don't like. all i can do is pray that americans who didn't vote can see that their vote might* really make a difference and this time around we weill have a greater turnout at the elections.

i'm sure you are aware that the majority of americans are not pleased with bush and by no means are pleased with the war.

 

[wafa islam]

Asalamu alaykum

Suicide and killing civilians is forbidden in Islam. Many scholars have made their views on this very clear. No one who kills him self will enter Jannah (Paradise).

Salam

 

[islamirama]

well before the us occupied iraq there was sadam hussein who killed, raped and tortured whomever he pleased for any and no rerason at all. people are supposed to look up to their leaders. and children who were during the first gulf war are now in their 20s and 30s all they have seen in their country from their leadership is hate and violence. it only makes sense that they a re now suicide bombers. hate breeds hate. and america is not to blame for any suicide bombers. people are responisble for their own twisted fates. unfortunately the reality is so distorted for some that they honstly can not see any other way.

to me that is extremely say and unfortunate.

and i feel offended when you speak of the west so broadly. speak about bush fine. or cheney fine. but unfortunately half of america didn't even vote at all and once we do vote an official into office theres little we can do if they decide to run amuck and invoke policy we as a people don't like. all i can do is pray that americans who didn't vote can see that their vote might* really make a difference and this time around we weill have a greater turnout at the elections.

i'm sure you are aware that the majority of americans are not pleased with bush and by no means are pleased with the war.

Here's news flash for you buddy,

saddam killed 250,000 in 20years and Bush killed 655,000 in 3yrs!

Madeline albright on national tv said it was worth it, when asked if 1million kids starved to death do to sanctions was worth it.

It's easy to take out a leader, assasination has always been popular among the CIA. But they wanted to weaken iraq for this day, not kill saddam. Iraq had the most advance and biggest army in the Middle East. You don't attack a country like that without sanctions for 10yrs to weaken it and everything else you can do to starve a nation to death and then blow the hell out of it and then go occupy it. And then to cry about suicide bombers ? i agree with you, reality is very distorted and hardt to see the facts. Especially if you live in the US and your main source of news is US media. Canadians are more aware of whats going on the world then Americans.

You are right, not all americans are the same. Many did not vote for bush, but they should have so we all don't have to see these days. But then again it really doesn't matter if you vote or not, electorial votes count only and even they were rigged. As for what can be done, impreachment is on the table and many americans out there are pushing for it. Heck we impreached presidents who had done less than what he is doing.

 

[Keltoi]

Here's news flash for you buddy,

saddam killed 250,000 in 20years and Bush killed 655,000 in 3yrs!

Madeline albright on national tv said it was worth it, when asked if 1million kids starved to death do to sanctions was worth it.

It's easy to take out a leader, assasination has always been popular among the CIA. But they wanted to weaken iraq for this day, not kill saddam. Iraq had the most advance and biggest army in the Middle East. You don't attack a country like that without sanctions for 10yrs to weaken it and everything else you can do to starve a nation to death and then blow the hell out of it and then go occupy it. And then to cry about suicide bombers ? i agree with you, reality is very distorted and hardt to see the facts. Especially if you live in the US and your main source of news is US media. Canadians are more aware of whats going on the world then Americans.

You are right, not all americans are the same. Many did not vote for bush, but they should have so we all don't have to see these days. But then again it really doesn't matter if you vote or not, electorial votes count only and even they were rigged. As for what can be done, impreachment is on the table and many americans out there are pushing for it. Heck we impreached presidents who had done less than what he is doing.

Americans have the same media choices as Canada or the U.K., the only difference is that Americans are culturally and politically more conservative than others in the West. People like to think one media is better than another, and in some cases that is true. What I've found though, is that the more media choices there are, the more people will pick and choose which source to believe, depending on their politics. No media is completely unbiased. That is why I explore a current event by reading various news sources, and finding the facts that can be documented, and discarding those that are simply conjecture or propoganda.

I also notice a tendency on this forum for people to post articles from opinion "journalists" and presenting it as a factual news story.

 

[MTAFFI]

saddam killed 250,000 in 20years and Bush killed 655,000 in 3yrs!

Bush killed this many or Muslims killed this many?

It's easy to take out a leader, assasination has always been popular among the CIA. But they wanted to weaken iraq for this day, not kill saddam. Iraq had the most advance and biggest army in the Middle East. You don't attack a country like that without sanctions for 10yrs to weaken it and everything else you can do to starve a nation to death and then blow the hell out of it and then go occupy it.

Were they not sanctioned for good reason? Saddam made threat after threat, do you expect someone to just be able to threaten the security of the world but then be able to trade freely and recieve aid at the same time, sorry buddy it doesnt work that way

And then to cry about suicide bombers ? i agree with you, reality is very distorted and hardt to see the facts. Especially if you live in the US and your main source of news is US media. Canadians are more aware of whats going on the world then Americans.

Suicide bombers are a joke, they have killed many times more civilians than US forces. About the media, the US is presented with the widest range of media of anywhere in the world. It is the Muslim countries that censor media, not the US, how else would people like you recieve all the credible information from Michael Moore and prisonplanet?LOL

You are right, not all americans are the same. Many did not vote for bush, but they should have so we all don't have to see these days. But then again it really doesn't matter if you vote or not, electorial votes count only and even they were rigged. As for what can be done, impreachment is on the table and many americans out there are pushing for it. Heck we impreached presidents who had done less than what he is doing.

Now the votes are rigged...lol.. Is there anything that isnt to you? Do you think everything is a lie and is set up for the demise for the general public. Take a look at your suggestions, they are ridiculous+o(

 

[islamirama]

Americans have the same media choices as Canada or the U.K., the only difference is that Americans are culturally and politically more conservative than others in the West. People like to think one media is better than another, and in some cases that is true. What I've found though, is that the more media choices there are, the more people will pick and choose which source to believe, depending on their politics. No media is completely unbiased. That is why I explore a current event by reading various news sources, and finding the facts that can be documented, and discarding those that are simply conjecture or propoganda.

I also notice a tendency on this forum for people to post articles from opinion "journalists" and presenting it as a factual news story.

Only news americans have is FOX, CNN, ABC and all 3 are right wing neo-con news outlets. There are americans who subscribe to BBC, al-jazeera, and few other international news chanels to get a better view of the world. I've met such people, including a former Univ. political professor, and they all don't have much positive to say about US what the average american knows.

why don't you try www.counterpunch.com, a good dose for those that watch CNN, ABC, and FOX for a good balance. Speaking of fox, check this out...

Reporters Blow Whistle on FOX News

MORE FOX News Whistleblowers Fess Up

That's the news source Mtaffi listens to, no wonder he goes on a defending spree against anything he reads on here....

 

[MTAFFI]

I also notice a tendency on this forum for people to post articles from opinion "journalists" and presenting it as a factual news story.

all to often

 

[Woodrow]

Here's news flash for you buddy,

saddam killed 250,000 in 20years and Bush killed 655,000 in 3yrs!

Madeline albright on national tv said it was worth it, when asked if 1million kids starved to death do to sanctions was worth it.

It's easy to take out a leader, assasination has always been popular among the CIA. But they wanted to weaken iraq for this day, not kill saddam. Iraq had the most advance and biggest army in the Middle East. You don't attack a country like that without sanctions for 10yrs to weaken it and everything else you can do to starve a nation to death and then blow the hell out of it and then go occupy it. And then to cry about suicide bombers ? i agree with you, reality is very distorted and hardt to see the facts. Especially if you live in the US and your main source of news is US media. Canadians are more aware of whats going on the world then Americans.

You are right, not all americans are the same. Many did not vote for bush, but they should have so we all don't have to see these days. But then again it really doesn't matter if you vote or not, electorial votes count only and even they were rigged. As for what can be done, impreachment is on the table and many americans out there are pushing for it. Heck we impreached presidents who had done less than what he is doing.

Just curious. Do you know how many presidents have been impeached?

Two U.S. presidents have been impeached: Andrew Johnson, the seventeenth chief executive, and William J. Clinton, the forty-second

Neither were convicted and both were acquitted by the Senate.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

 

[IbnAbdulHakim]

MTAFFI i got a simple question

are you a bush loveR? :-\

 

[Keltoi]

Only news americans have is FOX, CNN, ABC and all 3 are right wing neo-con news outlets. There are americans who subscribe to BBC, al-jazeera, and few other international news chanels to get a better view of the world. I've met such people, including a former Univ. political professor, and they all don't have much positive to say about US what the average american knows.

why don't you try www.counterpunch.com, a good dose for those that watch CNN, ABC, and FOX for a good balance. Speaking of fox, check this out...

Reporters Blow Whistle on FOX News

MORE FOX News Whistleblowers Fess Up

That's the news source Mtaffi listens to, no wonder he goes on a defending spree against anything he reads on here....

I'm sure the right-wing conservatives would be quite shocked to learn that ABC, NBC, and CBS are right-wing media outlets. That is also news to me.

I've met a political science professor too, what is your point?

Aww..yes...the evil of FOX news. Now that we've gotten that out of the way, let us return to some semblance of the topic.

 

[islamirama]

Just curious. Do you know how many presidents have been impeached?



Neither were convicted and both were acquitted by the Senate.

Source: http://www.infoplease.com/spot/impeach.html

Of thirty-five attempts at impeachment, only nine have come to trial. Because it cripples Congress with a lengthy trial, impeachment is infrequent. Many officials, seeing the writing on the wall, resign rather than face the ignominy of a public trial.


The most famous of these cases is of course that of President Richard Nixon, a Republican. After five men hired by Nixon's reelection committee were caught burglarizing Democratic party headquarters at the Watergate Complex on June 17, 1972, President Nixon's subsequent behavior—his cover-up of the burglary and refusal to turn over evidence—led the House Judiciary Committee to issue three articles of impeachment on July 30, 1974. The document also indicted Nixon for illegal wiretapping, misuse of the CIA, perjury, bribery, obstruction of justice, and other abuses of executive power. "In all of this," the Articles of Impeachment summarize, "Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Impeachment appeared inevitable, and Nixon resigned on Aug. 9, 1974. The Articles of Impeachment, which can be viewed at http://watergate.info/, leave no doubt that these charges qualify as "high crimes and misdemeanors," justifying impeachment.


-------


Bush qualifies by the above accounts and so many other like War Crimes

 

[MTAFFI]

MTAFFI i got a simple question

are you a bush loveR? :-\

no, I am not

are you?LOL

 

[Keltoi]

no, I am not

are you?LOL

Bush lover?...what does that mean? I voted for him, but I don't love him.