RE: Another sad, sad day

>The ‘damn’ was because this spoiled my theory, nothing else.
>However, it does bother me that this violence is again
>connected with Islam even before any serious clues led in
>that direction. People seem all to trigger happy to point
>the finger at ‘Islam.’ While they can very well be right, i

They are right and the reason people had suspected Islamic radicals initially is because of the modus operandi. Disco and nightclubs have been bombed by radical muslims in Asia and Europe since the 1970s. Western tourists within the previous five years have been slaughtered in Egypt and Tunisia.

Here was another attack on Western tourists in a Islamic governed country. The local Hindu population? Not likely, there is no precedence of violence and they had depended on the tourist trade for decades.

It could be the Indonesian military, which actually supports several of the most violent Islamic groups, including the Laskar Jihad which had been killing Christians on the Spice Islands and on West Timor in previous years.

>would like both a little restraint with such accusations
>(the Oklahoma bombing was almost immediately connected with
>Muslem extremists as well), and i hate it when people say
>’Muslems’ when they refer to ‘militant Muslem extremists.’
>

Read my post, I said specifically radical Islam.

Arthur, maybe you should act with a little restraint before insinuating that Americans were bigots for initially linking the Oklahoma City Bombing with radical Islam. They had very good reasons to. The first WTC bombing had happened just two years before and it most certainly did involved radical muslims, including one Ramzi Yousef.

There is mounting evidence that the Oklahoma City bombing actually did involved an Islamic link. Terry Nichols, McVeigh’s partner, visited the Philipines several times bewteen 1992 and 1994 and “according to a motion filed by the McVeigh defense team, an American fitting Nichols’ description met with Yousef in the Philippines in 1992 or 1993.” Yousef was funded by Al Queda for the 1993 WTC bombing.

McVeigh himself had been witnessed in the company of Hussain Alhussaini, who was John Doe No. 2 (whose profile initiated the original muslim connection).

Take these as you will. But please read the Indianapolis Star’s story. It is very well researched.

http://www.mastalk.com/oklahoma/indy/indystar.htm

http://www.okcbombing.org/News%20Articles/iraq_link_911.htm

>No one is accusing Islam of being the only religion which
>is violent. But to be truthful it is far more violent than
>Buddhism or Hinduism. I cannot understand this repeated
>urge to condemn others to divert attention from the case at
>hand.
>
>Hinduism has it’s militant factions. Buddhism doesn’t really
>have the doctrine to be a militant religion in itself, but
>the Pol Pot-collectivism in Cambodia during the late 1970s
>certainly has it’s roots in some Buddhist principles. I

Bullshit. Pray tell, what Buddhist principles influenced his choice to murder his own people?

He was an atheist (I’m sorry to say) and a communist. His genocidal urges were derived mainly from twisted Marxist tenets of class struggle from what I could see.

>
>Until the mid-1600s, Islam was by far more tolerant than
>Christianity.

And Western civilization, not Christianity, had been far more tolerant in modern times. You know, I could give a rat’s ass about Christianity. Fundamentalist Christianity and Islam come from the same root. Radical muslims weren’t killing Puritanical Christians, they were killing secular and religiously moderate young Westerners.

So spare me this incessant Islam/Christianity comparision. For your information, in the millenium before the mid-1600s, messianic Islam had embarked on a campaign through the sword that was far more bloody, and successful, than the Crusades. The classical civilizations of Egypt, Persia and Byzantium were annihilated and brought into the Islamic fold.

It might have been more tolerant than Christianity then again but everything’s relative.

At any rate, this thread is about what had happened in Bali. It was an act of violence committed by religious radicals against young Westerners. If you feel it is necessary to point out the evils that Christians did 300 years ago, then start another thread. I’ll gladly join you in that one.

But not here. It has no relevance.

RE: Another sad, sad day

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-10-02 AT 10:37 PM (GMT)]>
>Damn, just checked the newswires. Al Qaida is responsible,
>according to an Abu Hamza al-Masri, a London-resident
>Islamic cleric with connections to Al Qaida. Okay, so i was
>wrong… sorry, i liked the theory though.
>

Why damn, Arthur? Does it bother you that Islam is connected with this act of violence? Would it be better if it were the local Hindus or Nazis so you could point at someone else and say “they also do this?”

>Anyway, before people continue accusing Islam for being the
>only religion resorting to indiscriminate violence:

No one is accusing Islam of being the only religion which is violent. But to be truthful it is far more violent than Buddhism or Hinduism. I cannot understand this repeated urge to condemn others to divert attention from the case at hand.

200 young people were blown up in Bali and what you want to say is look at this Christian tinpot in Africa as if to comment what happened in Indonesia wasn’t all that bad because everyone else is doing it.

Okay, then why don’t we look at the 500,000 Chinese who were killed in Indonesia during the 1960s by Indonesian muslims? Or the 500,000 Christians killed in East Timor by Indonesian muslims.

Or the murder and slavery of black Christians in Sudan by Arabic speaking muslims.

What about the Christians in Pakistan killed last month?

>just
>today, the (Christian) Lord Resistance Army in Uganda has
>killed at least 131 women and children in the villages of
>Aymel and Lapono. Onward, ye Christian soldiers…
>sickening.
>

Why is it sickening to point out that the radical wing of Islam is extremely violent and bigoted?

Messianic religions like Christianity and Islam are not tolerent faiths. You are either a believer or you are an infidel. But the fundamentalist wing of Islam, right now has far greater hold in muslim lands and populations than the fundamentalist Christianity has in Christian majority ones.

Western societies for all intent and purposes are secular. There are no constant calls for crusades as there are incessant calls for jihads and fatwas. It fact, the separation between church and state in Western societies are enforced by law.

I’m an atheist. To me, religions and ideologies are the same. They both present sets of beliefs. If it is okay to condemn Nazism and dictatorial Communism then it is okay condemn wahhabism which preaches death to infidels and martyrdom through mass murder.

Fundamentalist Islam, like fundamentalist Christianity, is not tolerent, not matter how you try to convince people otherwise. They are finding this out in Holland too. Gays, other minorities and women feel discriminated against in muslim dominated areas.

Remember Pim Fortuyn? He and his supporters weren’t your average right winger. His party composed of blacks, gays, women and working class with socialist leanings. Pim himself was gay.

Radical or fundamentalist Islam as proposed by the Saudis is intolerent and conservative by nature. Islam as practiced in Turkey is moderate.

Islam in Asia had been moderate and tolerent. Iran, Afghanistan, Malaysia and the Central Asian republics were traditionally moderate societies. But we saw what happened when Middle-east inspired wahhabism takes over.

We saw a people blowing up its own heritage at the Buddhas of Bamiyan because there is no place for any other beliefs in their world. This, my friend, is intolerance.

RE: Another sad, sad day

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-10-02 AT 12:34 PM (GMT)] GarryB and Glenn, I respect the opinions of both you guys and I really don’t want this thread to decend into political discussions.

Not for a tragedy of this scope.

It was an angry reaction on my part to what I felt was America-bashing on something as horrible as this. If you feel it’s the fault of Americans, so be it.

But I can tell you that what happened in Bali was devastating to many of us in the US.

It doesn’t matter even if you do blame us, Australians are about as close to Americans as anyone in the world and the tragedy hurts just the same.

RE: Another sad, sad day

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 14-10-02 AT 12:33 PM (GMT)]>It seems we have the big brush out now… all muslims are
>religious zealots now are they?
>I guess that means all christians are members of the KKK?
>

Hey, the big tar brush has been out for Americans, hasn’t it? Oh, the KKK never killed in the name of Christianity. They did killed in the name of the Grand Dragon.

Radical muslims killed in the name of Allah.

Also, I never said all muslims. I did say radical muslims.

>”The local population is Hindu. This was an attack by bigots
>and zealots of the worst order.”
>
>What exactly are you suggesting Bearcat?
>

Quote the entire passage, please.

“There were Swedes, Britons and Germans there. The local population is Hindu. This was an attack by bigots and zealots of the worst order.”

I’m suggesting that they killed Australians, Brits, Swedes, Germans and Hindus because they were not muslims.

It was a racial and religious attack. No different from Nazis killing Jews for their creed.

>”I don’t think they gave a rat’s ass whether the young men
>and women there supported the US or not. “
>
>Gee that sounds almost like a “better dead than red”
>policy… and that would be unacceptible wouldn’t it?
>

I’ve absolutely no idea what you’re getting at. “Better dead than red” is the same as carbombing a nightclub?

>
>”These people have been declaring public Fatwa, or
>religiously sanctioned murder, of people like Salman Rushdie
>for years.”
>
>But if the US decides that someone is evil they can go in
>and remove them from power? Saddam is the leader of a
>country. Salman is a writer. Both have been given verbal
>death sentences. Not a court in the world is involved in
>either decision. But one is right and the other is wrong?
>

Actually, I’m against war with Iraq. Our true enemy is radical Islam. Saddam actually detracts from the real struggle. I’m no fan of Bush.

Removing a dictator from office is not the same as a death sentence sanctioned by a religion against a civilian.

>”And now you’re angry at us because these murderers decided
>to kill young Westerners at a nightclub that was about as
>far away from politics as one can get?”
>

>Of course I am not condoning what was done. It was horrible.
>But if you ignore the voice of some they will shout… this
>was the most effective shout we have heard from the
>region… it is a shame it is the only type of shout that is
>listened to.

Oh, I think you are condoning what’s done. I hope you have the same tolerance when Western civilians, who are also being ignored by their politicians and the world, respond in kind.

There is a lot of pent up anger across America, Europe and, yes, in Australia. Take the rape cases in Sidney. Or the riots in Britain. And, of course, the repeated attacks on the WTC in the US.

>
>”The same way the Arabs haven’t put any pressure on the
>terrorists. The Arabs had three chances to annihilate
>Israel. They failed at it. Not a single American soldier was
>involved.”
>
>The arabs call the Israelis terrorists and their own people
>freedom fighters so in that sense they have done what they
>could.
>

Hey, to each his own.

>Money and resupply involved many US soldiers and without
>such support Israel would probably not be the the state it
>is now. (I doubt there would be a Palestinian state either
>as the arab states seem to be about as capable of unity as
>the afghans.)
>

There were never American soldiers, money is one thing. But the Arabs had massive Soviet aid which did include Russian pilots and advisors.

>”If this had happened 50 years ago, there wouldn’t be a
>threat the following week. Saudi Arabia would have been
>taken over or bombed into submission a la Germany in 1945.
>Wahhabism would have been treated like Nazism and wiped out
>completely.”
>
>The US did nothing till its own territory was attacked.

Exactly, 3000 American civilians were killed on American soil 9/11/2001 and we haven’t declared who the enemies are save for this pissant Osama bin Laden.

>”Hey the Nazis had a gripe with the Jews too. They certainly
>struck at what they thought were their problem. How come we
>didn’t try to understand Hitler’s point of view?”
>
>Until they were attacked many countries had large minorities
>who thought Hitler was a genius. Germany was hit very hard
>by the depression in the 30’s and he certainly dragged them
>out and got them to a point where they came very close to
>taking on the rest of europe.
>
>”You mean if we carbombed an social center full of muslim
>young people it would show them we’re serious about our
>point? “
>
>No a group of Albanians on tractors in Kosovo would do… we
>could say they were tanks.

Hey, like the f7cking Albanians were unhappy about us being there. We practically gave them a nation.

At any rate, an accidental strike is a far cry from a deliberate attack on civilians.

BTW, I believed we should have stayed the f4ck out of Kosovo. It was a meaningless and worthless act of “compassion” by the idiot Clinton. It was actually despicable the way we dismembered the Serbian nation.

Hey GarryB, if you feel what happened in Bali was okay and you think it serves Australia right for siding with the US, by all means you should convince the Aussies to switch sides.

Hey, when Hindus start blowing Australians up for siding with muslims, I hope you switch again.

RE: Another sad, sad day

>> Now is not the time to blame Americans, Glenn. It’s
>>radicals of Islam killing Australians, not Americans.
>
>I am NOT blaming the US, I am blaming our own policy of
>following the US into this questionable campaign.
>

Glenn, they targeted the Sari Nightclub because it was filled with Westerners, no more, no less. There were Swedes, Britons and Germans there. The local population is Hindu. This was an attack by bigots and zealots of the worst order.

I don’t think they gave a rat’s ass whether the young men and women there supported the US or not.

These people have been declaring public Fatwa, or religiously sanctioned murder, of people like Salman Rushdie for years.

And now you’re angry at us because these murderers decided to kill young Westerners at a nightclub that was about as far away from politics as one can get?

>
>>They’ve basically declared war on Western civilization.
>>And what changes in our policy do you propose? Aquiesce to
>>the annihilation of Israel? Degrade our standard of living
>>because Western wealth and freedom insults Islamic poverty?
>>What?
>
>The US does not put anywhere near enough pressure on Israel
>to curb it’s aggression, and they are the ones trying to
>help with the peace process!!

The same way the Arabs haven’t put any pressure on the terrorists. The Arabs had three chances to annihilate Israel. They failed at it. Not a single American soldier was involved.

If tomorrow, America says it won’t support Israel, the Arabs would still not believe it.

In fact, they’ll immediately invade Israel and they’ll lose and lose badly again. Then it’s blame the US. Because to these fanatics Islam can’t possibly lose unless “The Great Satan” was involved in some way.

>This is hardly about living
>standards. This fight has been going on for ages, the
>problem is deep rooted, but the leading American presence
>that has been a fact in the Middle East region for sometime

Yes, this fight has been going on for ages if you have to go there.

The radical wing of Islam had been at war with the West since the religion first came on the scene. Anatolia, Syria, Egypt, the Fertile Crescent and, yes, Palestine, have all been a part of Western history under the Greeks and Romans long before a single muslim had appeared on the globe. If you want to talk about history.

Yes, the fight is going on. But right now, the radical Islamists are the only ones really fighting because the West’s thinking has become clouded. Maybe its old age. If this had happened 50 years ago, there wouldn’t be a threat the following week. Saudi Arabia would have been taken over or bombed into submission a la Germany in 1945. Wahhabism would have been treated like Nazism and wiped out completely.

>now has led – primarily – to US interests and now the US
>itself been attacked. These terrorists have a gripe with the
>West, and because the West is more or less led now by the
>US, they are striking at the head of a problem they see as a
>beast in their eyes.

Hey the Nazis had a gripe with the Jews too. They certainly struck at what they thought were their problem. How come we didn’t try to understand Hitler’s point of view?

>The attack of 9/11 has proven that they
>are serious about their belief, point is now, are we?
>

You mean if we carbombed an social center full of muslim young people it would show them we’re serious about our point?

BearCat

>Regards, Glenn.

Another sad, sad day

[updated:LAST EDITED ON 13-10-02 AT 05:52 PM (GMT)]
My condolences for the victims.

Now is not the time to blame Americans, Glenn. It’s radicals of Islam killing Australians, not Americans.

They’ve basically declared war on Western civilization. And what changes in our policy do you propose? Aquiesce to the annihilation of Israel? Degrade our standard of living because Western wealth and freedom insults Islamic poverty? What?

RE: China’s accelerating growth, implications?

>They didnt??? I can think of quite a few “meat grinders” in
>Korea and Nam. An other reason is that US didnt border
>Japan or Germany.. if you had Panzer divizions rolling over
>your land.. you would be forced to draw a line and get into
>a meatgrinder.
>

Vietnam was hardly a meatgrinder. It was a confused police action where the military had its hands tied by the politicians. We lost 55,000 in 10 years. If the US had approached Vietnam like it did with Japan, the war would have been over in two years with minimal casualties like Iraq.

Korea was a meatgrinder. We lost the same amount as Vietnam in a year and a half. We ran into another major power there and again we weren’t allowed to persecute total warfare like we did with Japan and Germany.

But heck, losing 50,000 troops against the PLA and the N. Koreans over two years in constricted theater jammed with millions of troops is nothing like the Russians losing close a half million dead at Stalingrad or Germans losing a 100,000 at the Ardennes over two months.

Even at the Battle of the Bulge, the US lost at most 18-19,000 dead. And only about 7,000 in the initial stage before the idiotic frontal counterattacks prescribed by Montgomery (he wanted general advance with troops along the entire front while Patton wanted to punch a hole through one side of the Bulge with armor and envelop the Germans from behind).

Noth Korea and the Ardennes had enemy armor rolling over American lines. The casualty rates were still MUCH lower compared to the Red Army and the Wehrmacht.

What’s more, no other nation in the world back then, not even Russia, could have taken Iwo Jima, Okinawa or Guadalcanal. Those were full-scale air-land-sea battles with long logistics lines. No matter how bloody those were, the US always inflicted more casualties than it suffered.

>Ad finaly by the time Yanks and the ontorage had landed on
>the french soil, the main battles have been alredy fough,
>the german force cracked and on the retreat on the easter
>front. After Stalingrad, ang Battle of Kursk germans had
>alredy lost the war, they never advanced one foot eas.. but
>just retreated. And both of these battles happend more than
>a 1 year before famed landing which west propetuated as
>beginning of the end of the Reich.. BULLSHIT. The beginging
>of the end for hitler was not operation Overlord but
>Operation Barbarosa.
>

I’m not disputing that. The deathknell of the German Army was at Kursk. But what we did save you from is the fate of Eastern Europe.

Without American involvement, Paris would be liberated by Red Army troops.

>Finaly… the Alies faced only the fraction of the troop Red
>army faced, and the best men and the armour of germans went
>east in far greater numbers then they did west… and still
>red army was first into berlin. So how about we give them
>some deserved respest .. OK “Partneer”?

Yes, the Red Army of 1939-45 does deserves some respect. But certainly doesn’t earn any points for the way it threw away the lives of its men.

Except for Kasserine Pass and Anzio, during most encounters Americans killed Germans to the tune of about 5 to 1. The Red Army on the other hand, always suffered more casualties than they caused even in the last years of the war when the Germans were in disarray.

Even if the best German troops had faced Americans in late 1944, it would still have resulted in the slaughter of German troops. In the Falaise Gap the United States annihilated 19 Wehrmacht and SS divisions, including some of the best German formations of the war.

Remember the “Highway of Death” in Kuwait? The USAAF left a bigger version in France. Thousands of burnt out panzers, vehicles and dead Germans littering the road out of Falaise for miles on end.

The Germans were probably the best soldiers man for man. The best military, though, belonged to the US. Without question.

RE: China’s accelerating growth, implications?

“What bugs me a lot is when I read post such as “You guys won’t unable to survive without our protection” or this kind of stuff.”

Well, I’ve never said that. But to be truthful, if Germany had stopped after France in 1940 and had treated England as a nuisance, today’s Western Europe would consist of one big Germany and Spain and Portugal. America would not have gotten involved even after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor (as long as Hitler was not dumb enough to declare war on the US).

Britain would be an American protectorate without any influence on the mainland.

There was no question of survival for Holland, Belgium, France, Norway, Sweden and Denmark under Germany rule. There was absolutely no intention on the part of the Nazis to eliminate the populations or cultures of those countries as they had intended for the Jews and the Slavs. In fact, the Germans of that period (it wasn’t just Hitler, he was democratically elected) actually believed they were protecting Western European culture.
As for sovereignity, well, these same states are giving it up now to the EU. There is little doubt in my mind that the Germans will eventually dominate Europe, in spite of French protests to the contrary. Another generation and the shackles of guilt that had kept Germany quiet and subdued would come off. They would then take the leadership role that really had been theirs since the 1960s.