Tell it to the Muslims. Your yada, yada, yada is a crusade to them. Do you know much about the first crusades? You might want to read up on them.
Nobody is saying the crusades weren't a crusade. You are the one saying we're engaging in a crusade at the moment. That is 100% false. The muslim angle has nothing to do with it (from our side at least).
I never said squat. It was muzosi who said "it could be argued [by the Muslims] that this is a crusade". You replied and said that "it could be argued but not very well". All I did was simply point out why the Muslims might see our recent behavior and comments as crusade like.
You thought my comments were stupid which, of course, is your prerogative. Personally, I don't think we are doing a crusade but the Muslims could care less what I think.
...typically the terrorists are Islamic fundamentalists. This is a big issue in the ME......there is a struggle going on between the secularists like Saddam and the ideologue fundamentalists like OBL. Its the equivalent of oil and water. I know its hard for you to grasp that concept but try for the thread's sake.
This doesn't have anything to do with what we were discussing. My point was that you claim we are on a crusade because we attacked Hussein, yet you make every effort to point out how secular Iraq is when talking about terrorist connections. How is it a crusade attacking a secular country? Do you see the point now?
I see your point but I never said we were doing a crusade. However, I must say that I can see the Muslims believing we are on a crusade......for them, an attack on one, even if he is secular, is an attack on all of them. Its part of the Islamic fundamentalist credo.
And you also need to understand that religion plays a much bigger role in a Muslim's life, even a secular one, than it does in this country. That's why I brought up the issue of secular vs fundamentalism.........to point out just how important religion is. And how the fundamentalists are working very hard to have Islamic gov'ts leading every Muslim nation
And because religion is so integral to his life, its easier for a Muslim to reach the conclusion that an attack on Iraq is part of a crusade against Islam......esp. when we have already attacked Afghanistan, another Muslim nation, and we are threatening to attack two other Muslim nations, Syria and Iran.
From your perspective, all that activity is part of the war on terrorism; for a Muslim, I can believe he would see it as another Christian crusade in the making.
He complied with the resolutions. What did you want.....blood? Actually, that's exactly what you all want.
Back to the dim bulb again. Do you really believe this? Not only did he not comply with the resolutions, he actively supported the (possibly incorrect) knowledge that he had WMD.
I believe what my eyes tell me.........there are no WMDs. If you have evidence they exist, please provide it. As for Saddam, he didn't actively support squat. All he did was wait until the very end before admitting all the WMD had been destroyed. Back then, I said he was doing it to save face and all the conservatives on this thread laughed. But that's exactly what he was doing.
When Bush realized that fact and knew the weapons inspectors would not find anything, that's when he pushed hard for war. By ignoring that fact, you either are the real dim bulb or you are in da Nile........our guys are dying because Bush got a bee in his bonnet [thanks to scummy rummie, tricky dick and wily wolfie] and went to war....over the objection of many Americans, our allies and the UN.
He could've still been killing his people at will if he had allowed the UN complete and unfettered access.
Name me the country where public hangings are common; where you can get a finger cut off for adultery; where a woman can be executed for looking at an unmarried man. People are killed at will. In fact, there are Friday lunches set up around beheadings. Similar things went on in Iraq but the country in question is not Iraq. This country is an ally. Which one is it?
ted |
