Press for truth!

[Hellbound]

Oliver:

It's not that I don't listen, it's that I have no idea what you're actually saying.

Every time I try to offer an interpretation of your posts, you give some BS comment about how I "can't understand" and then repeat the exact same ambiguous, unclear "explanation" you started with.

IF all you're saying is, as you seem to be sayg, this:

"Some people view the U.S. as terrorists."

Then this is nothing new, and this is nothing that Americans have any difficulty understanding. And it's pretty well meaningless as a statement by itself.

If you're suggesting that this view is accurate, then you are wrong.

If you're suggesting thast the U.S. should conduct its foreign policy based on not pi$$ing off Muslims, regardless of other factors, then you're also wrong.

If you're suggesting that this view is morally defensible, than I'd also say you're wrong.

So, are any of these the point you're making? Can you simply come out and state your point, or would that make it too difficult to act superior?

And where a person is from makes no difference. I'll listen to Pardalis because of many factors, chiefly among them:

1. If I am unclear on one of his statements, he will take the time to explain it so we are clear on meaingins we are using.
2. He does not act as if Americans are ignorant or incapable, simply because of nationality.
3. He is actually able to clearly articulate his meanings.

If you could do any two of these things, then we'd be able to move on.

Of course, as far as I can tell, it's more important for you to simply claim that Americans can't understand and to insult my intelligence, experience, and ability than anything else.

Just as an FYI:

I spent over a year among the people of Iraq, often working closely with them, and discussing beliefs, views, and politics and religion. I've spent time in Germany, in Saudi Arabia, in Iceland, Scotland, and Canada. I'm college educated, and I've studied history, literature, and sociology outside of my major-related coursework (and often works involving other cultures and nationalities). I've also studied arts from Japan, China, and Europe. Your implication that I can't understand is, frankly, asinine. I've a very broad view and experience of multiple cultures.

So, again, if you can actually explain what you mean, then we might make some progress.

 

[Oliver]

The point I agreed with you is that the Muslim world, at least a big part of it, seems to think that America's actions are terrorism. I do not agree with that assessment, but I acknowledge that this is what they believe. That is what is not news to me.
And as Hunstman said, they are wrong.

This is exactly what i said about it. With one
difference: "Depends on wich side you are -
wich side you grew up."

Those muslims who think that americans are
terrorists, would also say they know that for
fact. So i´m pretty sure this discussion would be
exactly the same in a muslim board. With
changed characters.

This is funny, is´nt it?

And now we´re at the same point where i
started. But let me ask you to clear it up,
Pardalis: Do you have muslim friends - do
you know the other side?

 

[Oliver]

So, again, if you can actually explain what you mean, then we might make some progress.

I claim to say this: No one is free of ignorance.
The rest has been discussed before and i´m getting
tired to explain it over and over again. It´s allready
said.

But i`m willing to answer concrete questions of yours, Huntsman.

 

[Hellbound]

Oliver:

So, your point is that other people would have a view opposite ours?

Again, I understand exactly what you are saying.

But you (and they) are wrong, the views are not equivalent and only one is based on facts.

They may be saying the same things we are, however:

1. Can they point to instances where the U.S. intentionally targetted civillians in order to cause fear and influence public opinion?

2. Can they point to any part of U.S. doctrine, policy, or SOP that points to the use of suicide bombs, attacks against civillians, kidnappings and executions of non-combatants, or attacks against our own people in order to stir up emotion againt them?

3. Can they point to the intentional use, by the U.S., of children as bait, decoys, or weapon delivery systems?

4. Where people were attacked and murdered, by the U.S. simply because of a difference of belief? Held captive and forced to read propoganda on video?

5. Any situation where a U.S. spokesman has stated anything along the lines of "We wish only to utterly destroy the entire Muslim world."?

THIS is why we say they are wrong, not because of a difference of belief. BEcause of a verifiable, objective difference in tactics, operations, and policies.

 

[Pardalis]

I don't have personal Muslim friends, but around where I live there a plenty of decent peaceful Muslims who just want to go about their business. If they came to Canada, it was to escape war and oppressive regimes, so that they could enjoy freedom and democracy. Muslims aren't the other side, Oliver. Islamic integrists are. And quite frankly, I do not wish to understand their point of view. They are fanatics.

The fact remains that islamic terrorists attacked America on 9/11.

 

[Oliver]

So, your point is that other people would have a view opposite ours?

Yes, off course there are at least as many people who
don´t agree with western ideas.

Again, I understand exactly what you are saying.
But you (and they) are wrong, the views are not equivalent and only one is based on facts.
They may be saying the same things we are, however:

And i say "you´re" and "they´re" both wrong.
...From a neutral point of view.

1. Can they point to instances where the U.S. intentionally targetted civillians in order to cause fear and influence public opinion?

Did you ask them? But i remember right now some reports of targetet
civilian points. I still remember the "aspirin-incident" under clinton very
well. Oh yeah, then there that report about the us-embargo wich leeds
to hundred-thousands of dead childs. Sorry, i don´t remember all the
facts.

But however: I still say: I don´t care who started. No! I don´t care
who started!

2. Can they point to any part of U.S. doctrine, policy, or SOP that points to the use of suicide bombs, attacks against civillians, kidnappings and executions of non-combatants, or attacks against our own people in order to stir up emotion againt them?

Come on - tell me what´s iraq about? Iraq had nothing to do
with it und you know it as well if you´re not on the "It was him, no,
he was it"-side.

3. Can they point to the intentional use, by the U.S., of children as bait, decoys, or weapon delivery systems?

It´s horrible to see the results of fear and anger. They do
just for fun? Where did this start? Where does this come
from? And again: I don´t care who did what. I want to see
peace on earth. And because of that you´re both wrong.

4. Where people were attacked and murdered, by the U.S. simply because of a difference of belief? Held captive and forced to read propoganda on video?

Now we´ve opend the religious side. This one exists a lot
of time before the americans. Yes, western people did so
a long time ago. Btw - before videotapes were invented.
Maybe the american and other interferences refreshed
this aspect.

5. Any situation where a U.S. spokesman has stated anything along the lines of "We wish only to utterly destroy the entire Muslim world."?

No. And the question sounds stupid to me because i don´t
know what you´re reffering to. The muslim world does not
think that way because of some "al quaida-hippies".

But again, things are just getting worse as longer it lasts,
so i´m sorry to repeat it again: I give a truck about who started.

 

[Oliver]

I don't have personal Muslim friends, but around where I live there a plenty of decent peaceful Muslims who just want to go about their business. If they came to Canada, it was to escape war and oppressive regimes, so that they could enjoy freedom and democracy. Muslims aren't the other side, Oliver. Islamic integrists are. And quite frankly, I do not wish to understand their point of view. They are fanatics.

The fact remains that islamic terrorists attacked America on 9/11.

I know, Pardalis. Most muslims here in germany are as well
very good people with gold in their hearts. I just would like
to see that the world would work together instead of fighting
each other.

Btw: Some of my people also live in Quebec and some around
Vancouver. I should refresh these contacts. How are things
going over there?

 

[Dog Town]

Oh yeah, then there that report about the us-embargo wich leeds
to hundred-thousands of dead childs.

Learn your history son! Children were dying because a mad man was building Palaces with the money! Not spending it on his own people. That statement disgusts me!

 

[Oliver]

Learn your history son! Children were dying because a mad man was building Palaces with the money! Not spending it on his own people. That statement disgusts me!

This is what i remind. I apologize if i remind wrong, but
i try to find the source of what i said.

And beside that:
I don´t care who started. Why? Because it
does not make the world a better place.
Nothing of it.

 

[Hellbound]

Oliver:

ON civillian deaths:

The aspirin factory was an accident, we did not intend to kill civillians. Please at least pay attention to what I actually say.
And the embargo did lead to many deaths. Why? Two reasons: Saddam continuously refused to comply with the UN regulations, regulations that were agreeed to by a majority of nations. IF he simply kept his planes out of the no-fly zone, the sanctions could have been lifted. Also, that was a UN action, not a US action. The second reason is that the established programs to allow for food and medicine were usurped by the government to smuggle other items. The deaths of those children was not the fault of the U.S.

On Iraq:

You seem to be missing the point. Those who lump the U.S. with terrorists are incorrect. The U.S. may still be wrong, I haven't argued that. But to equate the U.S. with terrorists is folly.

And my statements were NOT ABOUT IRAQ. That is your strawman. My statements were about the tactics used my radical fundamentalists, against me, my friends, and my countrymen in Iraq. Those tactics are why I object to the U.S. being labelled as "terrorist", we are not.

ON children:

Again, tactics I saw first-hand, and that were dealt with over there. Bombs were set off in the middle of groups of Iraqi civillians far more often than against U.S. targets.

Now we´ve opend the religious side. This one exists a lot
of time before the americans. Yes, western people did so
a long time ago. Btw - before videotapes were invented.
Maybe the american and other interferences refreshed
this aspect.

Okay, now you show exactly how biased you are. You want to pull into things that happened decades ago? Does this mean I should hold you responsible for Germanies actions say, around 1940?

The radical elements in Islam have done this, and continue to do so.

Sorry, but no leg to stand on here. IN fact, the U.S. has often gone to war FOR those who believe differently. Look at Bosnia...we fought for Muslims there. But, of course, this is ignored to support a biased, non-factual view in order to paint the U.S. as the bad guy. Again, I'm not speaking of Iraq, I'm speaking of terrorists. You say that these people are justified in labelling the U.S. as terrorist (we are NOT discussing whther the U.S. was right or wrong, jsut the label of terrorist). You are, demonstrably, wrong.

No. And the question sounds stupid to me because i don´t
know what you´re reffering to. The muslim world does not
think that way because of some "al quaida-hippies".

And agiain, my statements have nothign to do with the Muslim world, they have to do, specifically, with the label of terrorist. The things I've listed are all things that are characteristic of terrorist groups. They do not apply to the U.S. Thus, when the U.S. is labelled as "terrorist" by Muslims, Al-Queda members, Japanese, or Martians, it's an incorrect statement that is unsupported by fact.

Sure both sides may be wrong, that wasn't my argument. However, both a jaywalker and a murderer are breaking the law. That doesn't mean they're equivalent, even if both are wrong.

 

[Stellafane]

..I don´t care who started. Why? Because it
does not make the world a better place.
Nothing of it.

So you're saying that it doesn't matter who started it, so long as it ends?

 

[Oliver]

Learn your history son! Children were dying because a mad man was building Palaces with the money! Not spending it on his own people. That statement disgusts me!

Did a quick search...
http://www.embargos.de/irak/irak_belagert_vortr_ha0802.htm

Quote: "Auch wenn der Belagerungsring im Lauf der Jahre gelockert wurde, forderte die Blockade nach Schätzungen von UN-Organisationen allein bis zum Jahr 2000 mehr als eine Million Menschenleben – das ”stille Äquivalent zu zehn Hiroschimas” wie es der Sprecher des UN-Welter*nährungs*programms, Dr. Hannusch einmal nannte."

Translation:

Even if the embargo was softened within the years, un-organisations
estimate the deaths of one million (1.000.000) People up to the
year 2000. "The silent equivalent to ten hiroshimas", a speaker
of the UN-World-nutrition-programm, Dr. Hannusch, mentioned once.

 

[Hellbound]

This is what i remind. I apologize if i remind wrong, but
i try to find the source of what i said.

And beside that:
I don´t care who started. Why? Because it
does not make the world a better place.
Nothing of it.

You're right. The thousands oif Iraqi citizens who were forced bya tyrannical regime to live without education, without sanitation, without freedom of speech, without the benefits of medicine were better off without us.

The hundreds of people whose lives were changed from invalid to productive and healthy due to as simple a thing as providing insulin to the clinics of many towns...they would've been better off dying in their teens or early twenties from diabetes.

I'm for peace as well, but I'm also not niave enough to believe that everything would be roses and unicrons if we just stop fighting. This has nothign to do with who started it. This has to do with how to end it. Despite what you wish were true, radical Islam is here, and it is a threat. Iraq was not directly a threat to us, I'd agree. But having seen the conditions there first hand, there was more than ample humanitarian reason to remove Saddam from power...consdiering we were the ones that put him there in the first place. I consider that correcting our mistakes.

So you want us to just quit? You believe that will make terrorists quit attacking us? You think that will keep Al-Queda or organizations like it from targetting Germany next? Or Britain, or anyone else?

Should we nuke Isreal, as well? Remove them as a country to appease the Arabic factions in the middle east? Better than fighting, I suppose...seems to be your statement.

Should we give up our freedoms and convert the U.S. to an Islamic nation?

I'm sorry, but I'll wait until I can see your views supported by something beyond opinion and conjecture.

 

[Oliver]

So you're saying that it doesn't matter who started it, so long as it ends?

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting
other views. Wherever they come from.

@huntsman
"The aspirin factory was an accident"
I know this, too. Tell it to millions of muslims
who heard that in their tv´s and radios. I could
swear that they dont think: "Oh, it was just an
accident. So let´s forget about it."

 

[Hellbound]

Did a quick search...
http://www.embargos.de/irak/irak_belagert_vortr_ha0802.htm

Quote: "Auch wenn der Belagerungsring im Lauf der Jahre gelockert wurde, forderte die Blockade nach Schätzungen von UN-Organisationen allein bis zum Jahr 2000 mehr als eine Million Menschenleben – das ”stille Äquivalent zu zehn Hiroschimas” wie es der Sprecher des UN-Welter*nährungs*programms, Dr. Hannusch einmal nannte."

Translation:

Even if the embargo was softened within the years, un-organisations
estimate the deaths of one million (1.000.000) People up to the
year 2000. "The silent equivalent to ten hiroshimas", a speaker
of the UN-World-nutrition-programm, Dr. Hannusch, mentioned once.

So where in there does he say this is directly the fault of the U.S., or the U.N.? Where is the statement that this was due to the embargo itself, not that the government being embargoed did not take advantage of aid programs offered?

IN any case, you still ignore the fact that all that needed to be done to prevent the embargo entirely is for Saddam to actually follow the conditions he agreed to follow at the end of the war, as mandated by teh international community.

If you break into a house right after a police officer tells you not to break into that house, then is it the police officer's fault that your children now have to visit their father in jail? That seems to be what you are implying.

 

[Oliver]

You're right. The thousands oif Iraqi citizens who were forced bya tyrannical regime to live without education, without sanitation, without freedom of speech, without the benefits of medicine were better off without us.

The hundreds of people whose lives were changed from invalid to productive and healthy due to as simple a thing as providing insulin to the clinics of many towns...they would've been better off dying in their teens or early twenties from diabetes.

I'm for peace as well, but I'm also not niave enough to believe that everything would be roses and unicrons if we just stop fighting. This has nothign to do with who started it. This has to do with how to end it. Despite what you wish were true, radical Islam is here, and it is a threat. Iraq was not directly a threat to us, I'd agree. But having seen the conditions there first hand, there was more than ample humanitarian reason to remove Saddam from power...consdiering we were the ones that put him there in the first place. I consider that correcting our mistakes.

So you want us to just quit? You believe that will make terrorists quit attacking us? You think that will keep Al-Queda or organizations like it from targetting Germany next? Or Britain, or anyone else?

Should we nuke Isreal, as well? Remove them as a country to appease the Arabic factions in the middle east? Better than fighting, I suppose...seems to be your statement.

Should we give up our freedoms and convert the U.S. to an Islamic nation?

I'm sorry, but I'll wait until I can see your views supported by something beyond opinion and conjecture.

Well, i think you talk about Saddam Hussein, right? Mhmm, i
wonder why the USA installed him a long time ago? A fiasco
in foreign policy, is´nt it?

It´s paranoia to think because of some idiots, that the
muslim world wan´t to assimilate us like the borgs. But
if anger and fear grows, there is a chance to step into
deep trouble some day.

What Israel belongs, i really would love to see that
people start to live together. Israel is another good
reason to not interfere there. Because muslims may
be more then very sceptic because it´s friendship
to america.

And again: I don´t care who started. You´re still
fighting this point. It does not make anything better.

 

[Stellafane]

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting
other views. Wherever they come from...

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. What you're describing is appeasement, which hasn't worked out all that well in the past -- a fact that you, as a German, ought to be fully acquainted with.

 

[Hellbound]

Yes. It just that simple. Peace means respecting
other views. Wherever they come from.

@huntsman
"The aspirin factory was an accident"
I know this, too. Tell it to millions of muslims
who heard that in their tv´s and radios. I could
swear that they dont think: "Oh, it was just an
accident. So let´s forget about it."

Nice strawman.

I never said forget about it. IN my opinion, we should have done more to make amends for it. BUt it's not a terrorist act. That's the difference. We intended to destroy a military hideout, but had bad information. Terrorists did not mistake the WTC for a military airfeild. They did not mistake the hundreds of civillian passengers on a civillian airline for soldiers.

And I'm sorry, but peace does NOT mean respecting other views, wherever they come from. I DO NOT respect the view of ANY one who believes in genocide, such as those who follow radical Islam. I do NOT respect the believes of those who would supress the freedom to speak, to live as one wishes, and to otherwise act in wahtever way one wishes (without harming others). We should respect the views of those who think the U.S. should be destroyed? That ISreal should not exist? How? We CAN'T respect all views because many of them are directly contradictory.

And besides, the only views currently being disrespected is radical Islam. No one is disrespecting the Muslim view on any sort of instiutional or organizational basis.

You, however, seem to feel free to disrespect the views of everyone involved, aren't you violating your own principle?

"Respect all beliefs, no matter where they come from" is non-workable, ciontradictory, illogical nonsense. It can't be done. It's the type of extreme moral relativism I was talking about, that leads to nonsense.

 

[Oliver]

Unfortunately, it's not that simple. What you're describing is appeasement, which hasn't worked out all that well in the past -- a fact that you, as a German, ought to be fully acquainted with.

Off course it´s not simple. And i also have no solution
for it. But it could be a good start to make friends,
not enemies - am i wrong?

 

[Hellbound]

Well, i think you talk about Saddam Hussein, right? Mhmm, i
wonder why the USA installed him a long time ago? A fiasco
in foreign policy, is´nt it?

It´s paranoia to think because of some idiots, that the
muslim word wan´t to assimilate us like the borgs. But
if anger and fear grows, there is a chance to step into
deep trouble some day.

What Israel belongs, i really would love to see that
people start to live together. Israel is another good
reason to not interfere there. Because muslims may
be more then very sceptic because it´s friendship
to america.

My God, you really are that ignorant.

NO ONE THINKS THE MUSLIM WORLD WANTS TO ASSIMILATE US LIKE BORGS. QUIT BEATING THIS STRAW MAN. NO ONE HAS MADE THAT ARGUMENT. YOU ARE BEING EITHER INTENTIONALLY DECEPTIVE OR UNBELIEVABLY OBTUSE.

We ARE saying that, as declared by it's proponents, the goal of radical islam is to remove us from the face of the earth, remove us from power, or otherwise make us completely ineffective, or convert us to an Islamic state (if we wish to avoid the fate they would choose for us). You seem UNABLE or UNWILLING to draw the distinction between the Muslim world and radical Islam. You seem to be the ONLY one here that is equating Muslim world to Terrorist. I AM TALKING ABOUT TERRORISTS. The U.S. does not act as a terrorist. Period. Full stop.

And on Isreal, my word, have you EVER read any history?

You have it ABSOLUTELY BACKWARDS.

The reason there is so much animosity and mistrust towards the U.S. is because of our association with Isreal, not the other way around!

Sorry, but I'm done. You are either ignorant or dishonest. You ignore the arguments I make to make arguments that are entirely unrelated.

You are a biased, predjudical bigot. You have a chip on your shoulder against Americans, and I suspect againt Muslims as well (since you can't seem to seperate radical Islamic terrorists from the Muslim world).