Print Page | Close Window

Looking for opinions

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Politics
Forum Name: World Politics
Forum Description: World Politics
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=1643
Printed Date: 28 March 2024 at 10:11pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Looking for opinions
Posted By: Jeremy
Subject: Looking for opinions
Date Posted: 27 July 2005 at 1:11pm
Good day all,
My name is Jeremy Loome and I'm a reporter in Edmonton, Canada, writing for the Sun Media group. I'm working on some stories related to terrorism and security and would like to solicit opinions from any young Muslims with respect to:

a) Participation in foreign conflicts and the desire to fight abroad.

b) Anger or antipathy towards Canada's involvement in the U.S-led coalition;

c) Support for activities labelled as 'terrorism' by much of the world.

d) the nature of Islam and how best to fulfill the mandate of Jihad (using the definition of a holy campaign of spiritual revolution,) whether that comes through force or through peaceful methods.

My email if you would like to write is [email protected] Ideally, however, I'd like people to contact me personally by calling me at (780) 468-0158.

My role does not include getting into debates, so anyone calling in need of an argument or to rant without knowing why they hold such a position and being able convey it will be wasting their time and, for about five seconds, mine.

But if you have a position on these subjects that you would like to put forward reasonably or with genuine passion, it will help me in my quest to produce as much balance in the final articles as possible.

Thank you for your time,

Jeremy



Replies:
Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 27 July 2005 at 3:10pm
Hello Jeremy

Im not much for entering any armed conflict. Not because im afraid or cold harted, but to be honest. perfectly honest i think both sides are full of ______ and extreme in their rethorics.
But i have started to wonder if i should go and participate in an active way, because the global financial cabal has gone way over the line with afghanistan and iraq. Im not saying that saddam is wanted, he was evil to the bone. But the whole thing about 9/11 smells, first it is bin laden (whom to my best knowledge is still on the run), then it was saddams fault and they managed to find him in a hole in the middle of the desert...do you kow how big Iraq is???  If anyone is ganing from it, it is carlyle group, halliburton and all the other of the Bush gang, and saudi freinds. Who are all into dealing arms (through carlyle), oil and what not. I fail to see in any perspective how muslims any place have gained as much as an iota out of this. And in Iraq, they now have their very own puppet government wich naturally piss people off even more.  You as western press, should be ashamed of yourself. The coverage of what is going on down there is simply skewed and distorted. you lie to your own people, how do you expect us to trust you then? We get repports from down there, from our frustrated brothers and sisters, and they are not extremist at all, but they are extremely sorry that they are being robbed of their resources and freedom, while at the same time being the victim of people struck by insanity who go about and blow themself up.

Quote b) Anger or antipathy towards Canada's involvement in the U.S-led coalition;


Im not angry at canada. But i think you are all incredibly dumb. To fall for this whole, "to free Iraq from that evil man" ...look, evil men are everywhere, and saddam was a lion without teeth. Not even his neighbours was afraid of him since the first gulf war. Canada being pat of it, well thats your problem. But if people get angry at you and start attacking you, i can fully understand why. Many people see the coalition as the true aggressors. Even people who arent bin ladens.
You have really, really stepped over the line now as a coalition.

Quote c) Support for activities labelled as 'terrorism' by much of the world.


Here is the definition of the word terrorism according to your own language dictionaries.

ter�ror�ism    https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dterrorism">Audio pronunciation of "terrorism" ( P )  Pronunciation Key  (tr-rzm)
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So now you have started playing word games on us huh?
Did US not enter afghanistan and iraq without actual consent from the UN? wouldnt that make the war illigal by your own rules? Then in this illegal war, the people of the land is terrorised by bombs destrying their property unlawfully, and all to impose on them the western democratic political ideology?
I despise all use of terrorism, in any way shape or form nomatter if you do it (and call it a good thing) or we do it (and then its a bad thing).

I heard blair say on the news that the difference between your killers and ours are that you regret it. I mean, this man is a f**king idiot, how can i he say something like that? Does that mean that if a mujahideen shoots an american he just have to shout "IM SORRY!" and mean it, and then its all good? geeez...

Quote d) the nature of Islam and how best to fulfill the mandate of Jihad (using the definition of a holy campaign of spiritual revolution,) whether that comes through force or through peaceful methods.


Jihad is foremost an inner struggle for doing the right thing. To try and be the best that you can be. But it altso has a war facet to it. If, and only IF we are attacked, we are forced by the rules we abide by to retaliate. We will try to negotiate, and call for justice and fairness a long way down the line. And most muslims are still trying to do that in peacefull ways. We beg of you to stop killing us, and stop looting our resources worldwide. But you cant expect it to continue. At some point people will have had enough, and then we will open up a whole can of whoopass. If yo utake from people everything they have, and everything they love. Dont be surpriced to see them do crazy stuff. thats how reality works. Altso in the west i assume.

This represent my personal oppinion

Kind Regards
Noah







Posted By: Jeremy
Date Posted: 28 July 2005 at 9:04am
Thanks, Noah. Anyone else got a view?


Posted By: nico
Date Posted: 28 July 2005 at 10:03am

Im not angry at canada. But i think you are all incredibly dumb. To fall for this whole, "to free Iraq from that evil man" ...look, evil men are everywhere, and saddam was a lion without teeth

Canada didn't go to war in Iraq, it was against the war...so lets look in the mirror before we call nations..."dumb".



Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 28 July 2005 at 11:08am
peace Nico,

we all make mistakes ;)


Posted By: nico
Date Posted: 28 July 2005 at 2:22pm

peace Nico,

we all make mistakes ;)

What scares me about that mistake was that you associated the entire West (through implication) with the War in Iraq, one can only wonder how many more Muslims make the same mistake of ignorance?



Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 28 July 2005 at 2:36pm
there is nothing ignorant about it, the mistake was that it should have stated afghanistan, not that it is any better at all. But i admit that the two conflicts in my mind has merged together. If you supported one of them, you allready have your hands dirty. thats the mistake.

Peace
Noah


Posted By: nico
Date Posted: 28 July 2005 at 3:26pm

there is nothing ignorant about it

My friend you have lived to the very defintion of ignorance, you have stated an opinion confidently without actually knowing the facts. I was being nice to you when I stated you made a "mistake".

the mistake was that it should have stated afghanistan, not that it is any better at all.

Explain this rationale, if anything the war in Afghanistan was legitimate by all accounts. Firstly the ones who attacked the US on 9/11 were Al Q operatives, the US asked the Taliban regime to give them the OBL and the gang in return for not attacking Afghanistan, they refused and the war started. How is that "not better" then Iraq? Are you suggesting that the US now has no right to defend itself because you feel Muslims are going to be hurt? Also considering that the Northern Alliance actually supported the war, and joined the US against the Taliban so to suggest that the war in Afghanistan was a war against the Afghan people or Islam is idiotic, especially considering that no one outside Pakistan considered the Taliban as legitmate rulers of Afghanistan. I would really love to hear your rationale...

But i admit that the two conflicts in my mind has merged together. If you supported one of them, you allready have your hands dirty. thats the mistake.

You have not shown us as such...I will be EAGERLY awaiting a response.



Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 28 July 2005 at 4:21pm
Quote Explain this rationale, if anything the war in Afghanistan was legitimate by all accounts. Firstly the ones who attacked the US on 9/11 were Al Q operatives, the US asked the Taliban regime to give them the OBL and the gang in return for not attacking Afghanistan, they refused and the war started


Suuure thats what its all about. you really come of as informed (by fox news)
http://www.google.dk/search?q=oil+pipeline+afghanistan&sourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official - http://www.google.dk/search?q=oil+pipeline+afghanistan&s ourceid=mozilla-search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8& amp;oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US: official

Since when is it common practice to bomb a country to the pits, ensure thats it opium trade can be started again (After the taliban destroyed it) to catch one man, whom the taliban again and again claimed they didnt know where was. It was the western media who insisted that they knew it, and kept making storys. How do we know? we had people there through ISRA that is a humanitarian aid agency that i work with.

This man thanks the US for ensuring his business


http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CIA_Taliban.html - http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Afghanistan/Afghanistan_CI A_Taliban.html

Quote

The U.S. war on Afghanistan is a brutal attack on a country that has already been almost destroyed by more than 20 years of foreign invasion and civil war.' The Soviet occupation, which lasted from 1979 to 1989, left more than a million people dead. Millions still live in refugee camps More than 500,000 orphans are disabled. Ten million land mines still litter the country, killing an average of 90 people per month. At 43 years, life expectancy in Afghanistan is on average 17 years lower than that for people in other developing countries. The countryside is devastated and is currently experiencing a severe drought, with 7.5 million people threatened with starvation. The death and destruction wrought by the U.S. bombing campaign-and the cut off of food aid deliveries it has caused-have already killed hundreds and produced thousands more refugees scrambling to escape into Pakistan.

But not only is Washington attacking one of the poorest countries in the world, past U.S. government actions are in no small part responsible for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Bush administration claims to be targeting Osama bin Laden, who it says masterminded the September 11 terror attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon (even though it has offered no concrete evidence to back up this accusation), and Afghanistan's Taliban government, which is sheltering him. But as the Economist magazine noted soon after September 11, " [U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." An examination of this history will reveal the extent to which U.S. foreign policy is based on hypocrisy, realpolitik, and the short-term pursuit of narrow interests.

Quote How is that "not better" then Iraq? Are you suggesting that the US now has no right to defend itself because you feel Muslims are going to be hurt?


Defend itself against what. weman and children?



Oh btw...what happened to bin laden. did the us get to "defend" itself. or did it get to build the pipeline it wanted to build all along. Why do you think the taliban WAS INVITED TO THE US? for a cuppa and a freindly conversation? ofcourse they refused, as it was to no benefit of them or their people.

Quote Also considering that the Northern Alliance actually supported the war, and joined the US against the Taliban


so what youre saying is that you dont know youre arse from your elbow. The northern alliance are a gathering af war tribes. They where pissed of with the taleban because they had been fighting them, so they wouldnt raid the towns all the time. that conflict is what created the taliban to begin with.  But naturally the war tribes where the good guys becasue they helped the US. nevermind their own agenda, like reintroducing the opium trade like no tommorow.

Quote so to suggest that the war in Afghanistan was a war against the Afghan people or Islam is idiotic,


you are right. Piracy is the right term for it. sorry

Quote especially considering that no one outside Pakistan considered the Taliban as legitmate rulers of Afghanistan.


Do the US ask Denmark or norway for permission when they insert a new government? what kind of reasoning is that. With the exception of the northern alliance most afghans were happy about the taleban, because they provided something most of them hadnt had for more than 20 years. they provided security.
I do not agree with their treatment of weman, but i do know first hand what went on there. If you want to know more about ISRA see WWW.isra.co.uk or www.isra.dk

Quote You have not shown us as such...I will be EAGERLY awaiting a response.


wich you have gotten, now lets not waste anymore of eachothers time.

Peace
Noah








Posted By: Jeremy
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 7:55am
Can we keep this post on topic, please?


Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 9:27am
Hello Jeremy

Sorry. i did not intend to hijack your thread. Did i understand the assignment correctly?

Peace
Noah


Posted By: nico
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 9:49am

Suuure thats what its all about. you really come of as informed (by fox news)
I am well aware of the Unocal connection, with the Natural Gas pipeline leading to the Indian Market from the ample supplies in Turkestan. But that really doesn't explain anything, explain why would the US want to invade a country who prior to 9/11 was even supported with American aid? Why would they present any problems? Secondly the Taliban gave Afghanistan stability, exactly what the US would have wanted for the NG pipeline...so why would the US invade the country knowing it would lead to some form of anarchy to put the pipeline on hold for that much longer? Thirdly you forget that no matter what alterior motives there were, the US invaded Afghanistan only after they had given the regime a chance to save itself. So you are still lacking motive...

Since when is it common practice to bomb a country to the pits, ensure thats it opium trade can be started again (After the taliban destroyed it) to catch one man, whom the taliban again and again claimed they didnt know where was

Do you actually believe the Taliban? Whom here is the one with the complex? Surely it is not I. The Taliban destroyed the Opium crop yes, and it did so with US assistance even financial assistance, so again you are proving that the Taliban were more US allies then foes, so again why would the US want to get rid of them? I am not so naive to believe the US invaded Afghanistan based on "human rights", but I do believe that the US invadedTaliban Afghanistan because of the US perceived it as a threat to her national security, and that war was justified by all norms of war. You have yet to show me how someone of sound mind and body can even BEGIN to compare Afghanistan with Iraq.

It was the western media who insisted that they knew it, and kept making storys. How do we know?

Well lets see OBL had basses in Afghanistan, he was spotted in Afghanistan, he supported Mullah Omar as a "true leader" of Islam. Chances are MORE likely then not he was in Afghanistan and it is reported he was spotted in Tora Bora in 2002, which is located in Afghanistan. Tell me where he could have possibly been prior to 9.11 as no Islamic nation would be crazy enough to take him.

This man thanks the US for ensuring his business
Surely he may say thank you now, but the difference btwn the Taliban and the US is this. The Taliban destroyed the crop and offered no real alterantive form of income, thus famine and starvation were common or would have been. The US is trying to destroy the crop but is also trying to give these people some form of income to stop them from joining the insurgency, and to develop the economy. So your attempts are failing.

The U.S. war on Afghanistan is a brutal attack on a country that has already been almost destroyed by more than 20 years of foreign invasion and civil war.'

The US "brutally" attacked Afghanistan? Obviously they do not know what brutally means...if you want to see brutality look at teh Soviet invasion of the country where whole villages were destroyed for having suspected connections to the Mujahedin. War is innately horrid, but to say the US actions are brutal is a bit much, that isn't to say the US has been perfect but it is not by historical standards brutal. Do not think I am a pro-Bushie, I hate Bush, I hate Republicans/Conservatives. but I also hate people who manipulate words and facts to fit their own interpretation of the facts.

But not only is Washington attacking one of the poorest countries in the world,

Point is that Washington didn't attack the state of Afghanistan it attacked a rogue political force in the country...think about it.

But as the Economist magazine noted soon after September 11, " [U.S.] policies in Afghanistan a decade and more ago helped to create both Osama bin Laden and the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." An examination of this history will reveal the extent to which U.S. foreign policy is based on hypocrisy, realpolitik, and the short-term pursuit of narrow interests.

I agree with this assesment, yes the US created OBL, Al Qaeda,and fostered the growth of Extremist Islamist ideology in the 80's. But the US is now trying to destroy the monster it created...also why use the quote from the economist if it contradicts what you have been saying this whole time: "the fundamentalist Taliban regime that shelters him." ? Explain this lapse of jugdement.


Defend itself against what. weman and children?

Wemen...not sure what they are...but the US isn't attacking Afghani's are they? In WWII for instance the US bombed Nazi Germany it killed innocent people, but since they killed innocent people they weren't defending themselves? That's ur logic...so in order for a nation to defend itself it must not kill one innocent person? I don't know what you think war is...but it isn't pretty.

Oh btw...what happened to bin laden.

We don't know his fate, maybe he is dead. To me OBL is irrelevant now has his organization is much bigger then himself.

did the us get to "defend" itself. or did it get to build the pipeline it wanted to build all along.

Did it build the pipeline? Secondly did the US defend itself, in Afghanistan yes to an extent in Iraq she did the opposite.

so what youre saying is that you dont know youre arse from your elbow.

I know what I am talking about...I question if your sane.

The northern alliance are a gathering af war tribes. They where pissed of with the taleban because they had been fighting them, so they wouldnt raid the towns all the time. that conflict is what created the taliban to begin with. But naturally the war tribes where the good guys becasue they helped the US. nevermind their own agenda, like reintroducing the opium trade like no tommorow.

I never said the Northern Alliance was good did I? Secondly I am aware that most of the NA was Uzbek, Turkmen tribal members who lived in the Kush controlling 10% of the land. But they were the internationally recognized govt of Afghanistan and their wishes were recognized as the wishes of the people of Afghanistan, maybe it is YOU whom should learn not to underestimate others.

you are right. Piracy is the right term for it. sorry

Explain this one...considering the US isn't stealing anything in Afghanistan as there is nothing to steal.

Do the US ask Denmark or norway for permission when they insert a new government? what kind of reasoning is that.

Genius did the Taliban ask teh people of Afghanistan to be rulers of the state? No, so stop the hypocrisy.


wich you have gotten, now lets not waste anymore of eachothers time.

My firend your overt ignorance is shocking....sorry to say. Learn history then talk to me.




Posted By: Noah
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 9:58am
***deleted by Noah , off topic***


Posted By: Jeremy
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 10:32am
You're original post was fine, Noah.

It was just that I'm looking for individual positions, not debates between different posters, although I freely acknowledge that's anyone's right on a public board.

One of the problems with trying to find the rational middle-ground is that the persons involved in the debate are busy justifying their positions instead of trying to find out how wrong they might be.

The problem with that is that it's always easy to find something to support a preconception. Changing a preconception and admitting to oneself that you might be wrong about aspects of a debate because of the overwhelming bulk of evidence, as opposed to merely supportive evidence, is much harder because it means challenging ones own strongly held beliefs. But it is actually productive, and even exciting from the perspective of developing critical thinking.

The one observance I'll make about this chat site is that while it's obviously an important dialogue and far more reasoned than some I've seen, far too much of it seems aimed at proving one side wrong over the other, instead of looking for ways to work together and understand each other. And before anyone launches the obvious provocative flame, yes, media are as complicit or moreso in that as anyone.


Posted By: Jeremy
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 10:33am
Or even "Your" original post. Some editor I am. Sheesh.


Posted By: Jeremy
Date Posted: 29 July 2005 at 1:27pm
Any more views on the original post?



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net