17 Y/O Stoned to Death in Iraq

[iplaw]

A lot of ugliness?  I've seen some smokin' hot eastern european girls in my day...[]

[cannon_fodder]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
He noted that the strife in certain regions of the world is always a result of Muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors.  i.e. they are almost always the instigator of trouble.

The ONLY conflicts in the world right now that I can attribute to Muslims are:

The Balkans
Somalia
Iraq
Kashmir
Chechnya
the Philippines
Israel
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Afghanistan
Algeria
Nigeria
Sudan
and random bombings in NYC, London, Madrid, Bali, throughout India, Moscow, etc. etc. etc.

The drug wars in South America, the Nepalese communists, and the Basque separatists are not directly associated with Islamic issues.  Those conflicts are outside of problems Islam has with neighbors (and itself).

Wait, actually, if you look at a world map of the height of the Islamic Empire and draw a line around it... that's pretty much were all the conflicts in the world are today.  How strange... Christians, secularists, pagans, Buddhists, and Hindu's must all be war like religion picking on the religion of peace.

[iplaw]

You forgot Indonesia and East Timor.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

quote:Originally posted by Conan71
He noted that the strife in certain regions of the world is always a result of Muslims not being able to get along with their neighbors.  i.e. they are almost always the instigator of trouble.

The ONLY conflicts in the world right now that I can attribute to Muslims are:

The Balkans
Somalia
Iraq
Kashmir
Chechnya
the Philippines
Israel
Armenia/Azerbaijan
Afghanistan
Algeria
Nigeria
Sudan
and random bombings in NYC, London, Madrid, Bali, throughout India, Moscow, etc. etc. etc.

The drug wars in South America, the Nepalese communists, and the Basque separatists are not directly associated with Islamic issues.  Those conflicts are outside of problems Islam has with neighbors (and itself).

Wait, actually, if you look at a world map of the height of the Islamic Empire and draw a line around it... that's pretty much were all the conflicts in the world are today.  How strange... Christians, secularists, pagans, Buddhists, and Hindu's must all be war like religion picking on the religion of peace.

Pretty good stats, huh?  Savage makes some excellent points for a crazy guy.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
The problem, like the Tribbles, is that the terrorists keep on replicating, keep on recruiting new members.

Yes, we've heard it all before, "the cause of terrorism is our resistance to it."  Why don't we just surrender now and get it over with?  What policy of ours caused 9/11?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the challenge is to try to cutrtail their influence, cut off their resources, and discredit their rhetoric. Because that's the things that gives them their power. And I think that the present administration is unable to do that.

[iplaw]

quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the challenge is to try to cutrtail their influence, cut off their resources, and discredit their rhetoric. Because that's the things that gives them their power. And I think that the present administration is unable to do that.

We are cutting off their resources as we speak, but when the Feds attempt to do so by tracing funding and monitoring financial transactions people scream that civil liberties are being violated.  You can't have it both ways.

As far as rhetoric, that only works on a limited capacity.  Those who believe these particular radical ideologies are not going to be persuaded into changing their minds.  This is a matter of eternal joy/punishment for these loons, and you're not going to convince them otherwise.  The only educational inroads we can make are attempts to teach the children before they become indoctrinated, but according to several on the board here our rebuilding of schools in Afghanistan and Iraq is nothing to be impressed or concerned with.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:
No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the challenge is to try to cutrtail their influence, cut off their resources, and discredit their rhetoric. Because that's the things that gives them their power. And I think that the present administration is unable to do that.

We are cutting off their resources as we speak, but when the Feds attempt to do so by tracing funding and monitoring financial transactions people scream that civil liberties are being violated.  You can't have it both ways.

As far as rhetoric, that only works on a limited capacity.  Those who believe these particular radical ideologies are not going to be persuaded into changing their minds.  This is a matter of eternal joy/punishment for these loons, and you're not going to convince them otherwise.  The only educational inroads we can make are attempts to teach the children before they become indoctrinated, but according to several on the board here our rebuilding of schools in Afghanistan and Iraq is nothing to be impressed or concerned with.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

You want to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll have to adjust the approach, otherwise, it'll be a lost cause, kinda like another contemptible war the US got bogged down in and ultimately lost in Southeast Asia.

Take Afghanistan. My sense is, like the Soviets, we may never totally win in there unless we change the approach-not that our methods in any way mirror the Soviets' track record in that country.

The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for the same reason they ultimately lost their control in Eastern Europe (only on a more slower scale): because rather than try to win the people over on a grass-roots level, they used brute force and repressions and human rights violations almost as a matter of policy. I may suggest you research the Red Army's behavior on the way to Berlin in the 1940's, and the role of the Red Army and the Soviet political apparatus after 1945 in the governing of the conquered nations of Europe. I do beleieve you'll get an idea why they were not too popular.

And all of the various brutalities and atrocities didn't totally and ultimately win over the people, it instead caused more resentment and animosity than anything else. Oh, sure, the Soviets were the master of Eastern Europe, and the people probably knew that fighting the soviet military machine was a fool's errand. But the Soviets still never fully won over the people, because while they may have gotten their obedience, they never got their hearts, souls and minds; can't totally win those things when you march in as a conqueror rather than a liberator. And once the Soviets pulled out of Eastern Europe, not too many were sad to see them go.

And so the Soviets repeated this process in Afghanistan. Now, as anti-Soviet and as anti-communistic as I am, I suppose I'd much rather live under Lenin than live under Islamic rule any day. But rather than changing their tactics in some manner, winning over the people on a grass-roots level, giving them something to say yes to, the Soviets once again pulled essentially the same things that made them unpopular in Eastern Europe, rather than winning over the populace, they essentially came in again as conquerors. And there's a reason they lost Afghaninstan.

So what we have is a chance not to totally lose Aghanistan, and now Iraq. We must do more than occupy these countries. We must meet with the people one village at a time, win them over, bring them progress, give them something better than what they have. If we don't, we will have failed.

And that in no way is an endorsement of our involvement there....

[iplaw]

quote:You want to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll have to adjust the approach, otherwise, it'll be a lost cause, kinda like another contemptible war the US got bogged down in and ultimately lost in Southeast Asia.

Any comparisons to Vietnam don't hold water, but I'll agree with you that we should have been/should be far more aggressive, but wouldn't that just create more blowback?

quote:
Take Afghanistan. My sense is, like the Soviets, we may never totally win in there unless we change the approach-not that our methods in any way mirror the Soviets' track record in that country.

We did win there.  We deposed the Taliban, which was our main goal.  Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now as we have turned over responsibility to the international community.

quote:
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for the same reason they ultimately lost their control in Eastern Europe (only on a more slower scale): because rather than try to win the people over on a grass-roots level, they used brute force and repressions and human rights violations almost as a matter of policy. I may suggest you research the Red Army's behavior on the way to Berlin in the 1940's, and the role of the Red Army and the Soviet political apparatus after 1945 in the governing of the conquered nations of Europe. I do beleieve you'll get an idea why they were not too popular.

Thanks, but I'm already familiar with the pertinant history on the subject.  Are you suggesting that the US Army is behaving in a similar fashion?  If so, what's your proof?

quote:
So what we have is a chance not to totally lose Aghanistan, and now Iraq. We must do more than occupy these countries. We must meet with the people one village at a time, win them over, bring them progress, give them something better than what they have. If we don't, we will have failed.

That's exactly what we're doing.  Are you completely unfamiliar with the thousands of humanitarian projects our armed services have conducted over the last 4 years?  It appears to me that you need to do a bit of research yourself.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

quote:You want to win in Iraq and Afghanistan, you'll have to adjust the approach, otherwise, it'll be a lost cause, kinda like another contemptible war the US got bogged down in and ultimately lost in Southeast Asia.

Any comparisons to Vietnam don't hold water, but I'll agree with you that we should have been/should be far more aggressive, but wouldn't that just create more blowback?

quote:
Take Afghanistan. My sense is, like the Soviets, we may never totally win in there unless we change the approach-not that our methods in any way mirror the Soviets' track record in that country.

We did win there.  We deposed the Taliban, which was our main goal.  Afghanistan is a NATO responsibility now as we have turned over responsibility to the international community.

quote:
The Soviets lost in Afghanistan for the same reason they ultimately lost their control in Eastern Europe (only on a more slower scale): because rather than try to win the people over on a grass-roots level, they used brute force and repressions and human rights violations almost as a matter of policy. I may suggest you research the Red Army's behavior on the way to Berlin in the 1940's, and the role of the Red Army and the Soviet political apparatus after 1945 in the governing of the conquered nations of Europe. I do beleieve you'll get an idea why they were not too popular.

Thanks, but I'm already familiar with the pertinant history on the subject.  Are you suggesting that the US Army is behaving in a similar fashion?  If so, what's your proof?

quote:
So what we have is a chance not to totally lose Aghanistan, and now Iraq. We must do more than occupy these countries. We must meet with the people one village at a time, win them over, bring them progress, give them something better than what they have. If we don't, we will have failed.

That's exactly what we're doing.  Are you completely unfamiliar with the thousands of humanitarian projects our armed services have conducted over the last 4 years?  It appears to me that you need to do a bit of research yourself.

I'm not suggesting, implying or even stating that our behavior in the Middle East closely resembles that of the Soviets. But like the Soviets, we are merely an occupying force, vaguely resembling liberators, but priomarily an occupying army. We have not totally won over the people, reconstruction projects and all. Gotta educate them, reindoctrinate them.

As for Afghanistan, we may had deposed the Taliban, but somebody's still shooting at us over there.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes
As for Afghanistan, we may had deposed the Taliban, but somebody's still shooting at us over there.

Six guys were going to go in and shoot up Fort Dix, does that mean we've lost here in the states as well?

Radical Islam is far different enemy than communism or fighting a different political ideology.

People will eventually give up when they realize that a political ideology is killing it's people.  

However, Islam has the unique appeal of being a religious ideology which also rules governments.  No one cares if they get killed because they have a bunch of Imams promising virgins and all you can eat buffets- or whatever in their final paradise for participating in Jihad.  Gotta be better than huddling in mud huts in a desert or shivering with the yaks in the mountains.

Should we just tuck our tails, say radical Islam has whipped us and await an inevitable day of reckoning back here in the states?

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by mr.jaynes
As for Afghanistan, we may had deposed the Taliban, but somebody's still shooting at us over there.

Six guys were going to go in and shoot up Fort Dix, does that mean we've lost here in the states as well?

Radical Islam is far different enemy than communism or fighting a different political ideology.

People will eventually give up when they realize that a political ideology is killing it's people.  

However, Islam has the unique appeal of being a religious ideology which also rules governments.  No one cares if they get killed because they have a bunch of Imams promising virgins and all you can eat buffets- or whatever in their final paradise for participating in Jihad.  Gotta be better than huddling in mud huts in a desert or shivering with the yaks in the mountains.

Should we just tuck our tails, say radical Islam has whipped us and await an inevitable day of reckoning back here in the states?

We are fighting an idea and its adherents. Reeducation is needed. I think something along the lines of the films that the people of Berlin
were required to watch after the fall of Nazi Germany, exposing the atrocities of its former leadership.

Win their hearts and minds and the rest will follow.

[shadows]

CF being answered;
-----------------------------------------------
d

[cannon_fodder]

I appreciate that you are attempting to discuss this with me.  Pardon me if I have trouble following your train(s) of thought.
--

The economy in the US, let alone the world, is not receding.  The world economy is growing as fast as it ever has.  The US economy is growing at a reasonable pace following a period of rapid growth.  So you are mistaken about the generally economic climate.

Likewise, new land is being created.  River delta's are the most common form.  But also in Dubai they are constructing new Islands.  Dallas is turning some swamp/drainage land into usable real estate.  And Kilauea has continuously spouted new land into the sea for over a decade.  In another decade or two a new island will form in the Hawaiian chain.  New Land!

But to address your point on the matter:  land has not been the principle form of wealth since feudal time.  International trade and then industrialization have made commodities and capital assets a much more important asset. A simple example:  the land on which my house sits is worth no more than $35,000.  However, with the construction of a dwelling the package is worth over $100K.  Making the dwelling more valuable than the land. Clearly this elementary example unfolds many times over when you consider the capital assets of factories or skyscrapers.  

Even these assets pale in comparison the trade they are able to accomplish.  The value of a company is not the asset base on which it operates, but the discounted potential future profits it will generate.  The assets are merely a tool to accomplish this goal.  Before the trade and the industrial revolution land was the only asset on which additional resources could be made (cows being the classic:  with interest (milk), capital gains (they grow and you slaughter them), and dividends (calves), the amount of each you could generate depending proportionally to your land ownership).  However, land is no longer the exclusive nor even the primary method for generating wealth nor has it been in the history of the United States.

And to clarify your point, the money we are handing out in Iraq is not coming back to the US as foreign investment.  It is being spent regionally on necessities.  There is very likely some residual effects in world trade that impact the US, but not the direct investment you infer.  Lets hope we stabilize the region so that they may realize their oil wealth and perhaps we can see some of that return as investment.

An economist, you are not.

[shadows]

d

[shadows]

CF answered;
-----------------------------------------------

My assumption is that all thing are relative.  The establishing of this country was by a religion conquest for gold for the church of Spain.  The archive record that Cortez said those he could not convert to religion he would slay.  Those who came to the north shores were refugees from the church of England and seekers of gold along the north coast.   Also England establish prison camps for their convicts but later moved them to Australia

al-Bakr rousted the English Empire from Iraq  They took  with  them their established government of Iraq to England.   Saddam [second in command] did quell the political instability left behind.  He killed many civilians in doing so, like we are doing.

We are in Iraq today with upward to 160,000 ground troops, cluster bombing civilian homes from above 50,000' feet after we made him destroy all missiles that would reach that height.  Our purpose is to quell the political instability in Iraq regardless of how many residents we blow up and how many women and children we kill merely because we think there is some bad guy living in the house.

We need to reconsider the old bushy head German's theory on relativity.   How many acts of violence you point out in your post that does not also apply to us ?  Or is there a noble justification for all the acts of violence we have done or are doing?    Does not retaliation beget retaliation which begets violence and violence promotes violence?

One could go on with pages of print asking our citizens to look on their doorstep as this and other scrimmages is bankrupting our country.  That phony money we have been distributing over there is being used to buy our industries [through the stock market} and our lands.   We call it foreign investments that are closing our industries.   There is lots of paper but no more land is being created.

The stoning of the young girl, as I have pointed out, that was a practice of the Israelites thousands of years ago but I see no way  we should support a supposed civilized group today that is allowing it.

It's past time to get the hell out of there and stabilize the political instability in our homelands before the tidal wave of a receding economy overwhelms us.