Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums :: View topic - really worth to argue about religion, isn't it childish?

Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

really worth to argue about religion, isn't it childish?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

beancurdturtle

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 3:04 am Post subject:

Anuradha Chepur wrote:

I will believe in what is glaringly obvious - 911 triggered the war. Had it not been for 911, I doubt if they would visit Iraq.

I partially agree with you here. The events of 9/11 are the catalyst that the Bush Administration used to justify the war against Iraq. Even though Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. I also know the the Bush Administration was hoping for just such an event to happen.

So, we can dissmiss all the "hidden interest" theories and get right to the core of the motivation for the war on Iraq. It was a stepping stone in a larger plan.

Here is the proof:
1. Go here http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm to see Statement of Principals for the Project for the New American Century. The document was publish June 3, 1997 (4 years before 9/11). First look at the signers of this statement. They include; Elliott Abrams, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dan Quayle, *beep* Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz - all Bush Administration officials, or people with strong influence over George Bush.

2. You can read the whole statement if you wish - but it is enough just to read the summary bullet points.

Quote:

� we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
� we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
� we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
� we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

In summary the objective was to use military power to dominate the world and create an environment that would make America stronger and richer (and screw the rest of you).

3. These fellows (by now the majority of staffers in the Bush Administration) were not getting the political support they needed to implement their agenda, so they published a report in September of 2000 that you can find at http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf titled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century. In the report, they stated what needed to happen to implement their agenda quickly:

Quote:

Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event � like a new Pearl Harbor.

It's in Chapter 5 of the report titled Creating Tomorrow�s Dominant Force.

4. On the day of 9/11, Rumsfeld immediately called for an attack on Iraq. Members of the Bush Administration called the events of 9/11 an "opportunity" many times.

The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) as for real - it's not a hoax website. None of the Bush Administration staffers has denied their involvement in the PNAC when asked.

I have a small suspicion that, even had they been warned of an impending terrorist attack (and they were warned), the Bush Administration would have let it happen so they could have the "catastrophic and catalyzing event" they needed to implement their plan. But let's give the Bush Administration the benefit of my small doubts and say my suspicion is wrong.

9/11 was not the trigger for the war on Iraq. 9/11 was a catastrophic and catalyzing event that was manipulated to enable the Bush Administration to put their agenda for world dominance into effect. This may sound like some crazy theme from a mad scientist in a movie - but the Bush Administration really did have an agenda for world domination 3 years before they were the Bush Administration. Read the documents I cited and others on the PNAC website.

Let me ask you Dr. Chepur. As a foreigner, now that you know that the members of the Bush Administration have had a plan for world domination (at your expense) through the use of a powerful military since 1997, how comfortable are you that George Bush and his power mad cronies are in charge of the American military?
_________________
Daniel

�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss

RedRose

Joined: 21 May 2004
Posts: 2735
Location: GuangZhou, China

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:55 am Post subject:

Mirea wrote:

To start a war and to say we don't kill civilians "intentionally" is very cynical per se. As for me, I can't see any difference between the definition of terrorists and the Bushy government either.

I can see a huge difference between the definition of terrorists and the Bushy government . the latter is worse., I mean, the latter is a huge terrorist with a ridiculous excuse. the excuse is: we started Iraq war in order to make Iraq a nice place, a democratic country.

pugachevV

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 2295

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 11:26 am Post subject:

BCT I googled the press conference you quote. It did not support your so called "fact". Please check your source.

beancurdturtle

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California

Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:53 pm Post subject:

pugachevV wrote:

BCT I googled the press conference you quote. It did not support your so called "fact".
Please check your source.

If you found nothing by googling, maybe you entered the wrong keywords to search on. Or perhaps it hasn't been indexed by the google search engine. Just because you can't find something in google does not mean that it does not exist or is not fact.

In any case - I didn't quote a press conference. I cited an article, and provided a link to the article.

Both the publication and the sources used in the article are very credible.

If you wish to attempt to discredit the source or the publication I cited (in anything I have written) you are welcome to do so. This is most effectively done by making a statement, then supporting your statement with facts and/or credible sources that prove your stated position.

Offering unsupported or groundless opinion is hardly convincing.
_________________
Daniel

�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss

Anuradha Chepur

Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 933

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 12:44 am Post subject:

BCT, there could be quite a few conspiracy theories which read like suspense thrillers, as you have suggested yourself. I don�t think USA needs to be so desperate to be a dominant country, when it is long since one. As for my country, which truly has the potential to go a long way, what matters to me more than Bush�s administration is the honesty levels of our own leaders.

pugachevV

Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 2295

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:09 am Post subject:

No, BCT - I got the text of the press conference. It just didn't say what you said.

Oriani

Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 208
Location: Venezuela

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 7:53 am Post subject:

Come on Admiral.. Religion again???? But I really like what these people say... I'm surpirsed about their ideas and comments.. Thanks God... You know.. my dad taught me not talking about religion and politics when there are too many religion/politics differences, however it's up to others and ourselves no to get offended about others'opinios!"

beancurdturtle

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:04 am Post subject:

pugachevV wrote:

No, BCT - I got the text of the press conference. It just didn't say what you said.

So give me the link you found to a press conference. I will verify if it is the same press conference I quoted.

Thanks,
_________________
Daniel

�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss

beancurdturtle

Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 9:08 am Post subject:

Anuradha Chepur wrote:

BCT, there could be quite a few conspiracy theories which read like suspense thrillers, as you have suggested yourself.

Yup. But it bears repeating, the Project for a New American Century is 100% authentic.

It's just so hard to comprehend that public servants could think this way that many people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.
_________________
Daniel

�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss

Mirea

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:05 pm Post subject:

RedRose wrote:

Yes, sadly you're right Sad

The latter is a terrorist with the most powerful army in the world at his disposal, and his excuses are not only ridiculous, they are so cynical and feigned, there is no word to discribe it.
_________________
"Who only speaks one language doesn't know his own" Goethe

Mirea

Joined: 11 Sep 2006
Posts: 22
Location: Switzerland

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:23 pm Post subject:

beancurdturtle wrote:

It's just so hard to comprehend that public servants could think this way that many people dismiss it as a conspiracy theory.

I guess that's exactly their advantage, they know a lot of people are not prepared to make such presumptions, or to "think the unthinkable" (where did I get this from? Shocked

Michael Moore? Can't remember...) Honestly, one must not believe in conspiracy theories to see the Bush administration is lying about so much things, whatever their intention is.
_________________
"Who only speaks one language doesn't know his own" Goethe

ad-miral

Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 1488

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:45 am Post subject:

Oriani wrote:

Come on Admiral.. Religion again???? But I really like what these people say... I'm surpirsed about their ideas and comments.. Thanks God...

You know.. my dad taught me not talking about religion and politics when there are too many religion/politics differences, however it's up to others and ourselves no to get offended about others'opinios!"

The guys here like to talk about it. You want to say to them that talking about the quality of Religion is stupid, so you have to say anything to them.

Laughing

Badboy Bush uses terrorists as an excuse for his imperial policy, how can you just look at it without giving your opinion about it?
_________________
If I say "I love you" to someone, then I also have to say "I also love everyone else inside you, I love the whole world because of you, I also love myself inside you." -- Erich Fromm, the Art of Love

Edoardo

Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Venice, Italy

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:50 am Post subject:

beancurdturtle wrote:

Edoardo wrote:

We build our language, not the dictionary. We aren't supposed to follow strictly our dictionary. We are supposed to update it constantly.

Language evolves through common usage. You cannot arbitrarily change the definition of a word to support your personal opinion or argument.

Edoardo wrote:

I do not want to absolve anyone. War is war. People die. But confusing ordinary war and terrorism is the kind of thought we do not need.

I did not confuse anything. I provided a concise definition for the word "terrorism" provided by a very reputable source (Princeton University). Then I demonstrated that some of the actions of the Bush administration meet the definition. The fact this causes you cognitive dissonance does not mean it is not true - and certainly shouldn't preclude it from being discussed.

I understand you disagree with my opinion, but your dismissal "[it] is the kind of thought we do not need" is neither constructive nor convincing. If you disagree, state your opinion and support it. That's completely appropriate as far as I am concerned.

Edoardo wrote:

Yes. That's way they call them "shock and awe". Because they just show their capacities. It is a very old strategy, that has always been applied in every modern war...

You could also say that torture during interrogation is a very old strategy. Stating an irrelevant fact doesn't prove your point. Just because shock and awe is a "very old strategy" doesn't excuse it's use. It's designed to create fear in civilians, and is therefor a form of terrorism. Do you condone terrorism because it is a very old strategy?

It is obvious that war frightens and terrorize people, like terrorism does: but it does not mean that you can put them on the same plan, though "war" can meet the general definition of "terrorism" found in the dictionary. It is the common sense that make things different.
Some war actions are -of course- made with the purpose of terrorizing both militaries and civilians. But you should ask yourself "how" and "why".
Also terrorism can be a "good" terrorism. Italian or French partisans sometimes practised "terrorism" during the resistance in WWII. Those were semi-official military actions (that means that an ordinary army would have made the same) against an official invasion by the German "Reich". But it was about blowing up a bridge or a railway used by the german occupying army on french or italian land. It was not about demolishing an elementary school in Berlin.

beancurdturtle wrote:

Edoardo wrote:

(You will tell me "yeah, 500 year ago people were all stupid, now we live in the space age..." If they were, we wouldn't talk about these themes anymore. Leaders do never follow ordinary rules. Most of all, leaders still read The Prince. Think about it...)

I will tell you nothing of the sort. I am a Philosophical Daoist, which means I live my life in accordance with a philosophy more than 2,000 years old. I am completely cognizant of the fact that space age science has nothing to do with wisdom. And even regular people like me have read The Prince - though I read it more than 20 years ago.

Those words in brackets were not for you, but for those who had already answered me in that kind of way in an another topic... I'm sorry of having been not very clear in this... Anyway, I suggest you of reading The Prince again.

beancurdturtle wrote:

Leaders in the U.S.A. are supposed to follow ordinary rules. The U.S. Constitution requires that everyone - including the President - follow the rule-of-law. Just because the Machiavellian George Bush finds the law inconvenient to his goals does not excuse him from following the law.

What are you talking about???... You don't understand what I meant... When military and political leaders in the USA order to kill someone, they do it legally, through the army, the CIA and the justice system. Officially, it is the State that kills those people, with military actions, aimed (top-secret) assassination and death penalties. No one would dream about accusing a secret agent, an executioner, or a soldier of homicide! Because these actions in some determined situation aren't anymore immoral.

beancurdturtle wrote:

Edoardo wrote:

I do not follow this kind of relativism. You can't put so different cultures and societies on the same plan.

I did not put different cultures and societies on the same plane. I showed how actions of the Bush administration can be interpreted as terrorism according to a valid definition of the word. Objective analysis of the definition and the actions puts the actions (not the cultures and societies) in the same class.

If you put different actions, made in different ways, with different causes and with different purposes, by two different peoples with different cultures... on the same plan, you are not considering those cultural differences. So you are putting those cultures on the same plan. Or you are brought to, at least. That's the kind of thought "we don't need", it is not useful to analyze the problem... If you want to discover the causes of Islamic terrorism, you cannot start by putting victims and killers on the same plan. As I am talking about islamic terrorism and causes, which has nothing to do with war in Iraq: even if war in Iraq improved it, and there is terrorism also in Iraq after the war... It is not its cause!

Last edited by Edoardo on Mon Oct 16, 2006 3:46 am; edited 3 times in total

Edoardo

Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Venice, Italy

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 3:02 am Post subject:

Anuradha Chepur wrote:

Edoardo, in most places, leaders try to keep fanatics in good humor. But here we have a country with some guts.

Fanatics will not be in good humor until infidels exsist. The difference between USA and the rest of the world is that the USA, unlike Israel, China, Europe, India... haven't got terrorism inside their borders. they actually do not have to fear it, after 9/11...
While in Europe great people such as Salman Rushdie, Theo Van Gogh (killed) or Robert Redeker (the latest one to be blamed) are currently condenmed to die by Islam fanatics because of their ideas. The purpose is to create cultural taboos about Islam also in free countries... They're succeeding.

Last edited by Edoardo on Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:34 am; edited 1 time in total

Edoardo

Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Venice, Italy

Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 4:32 am Post subject:

ClarissaMach wrote:

what�s going on there nowadays is a consequence of years of the �big stick� policy, and these terrible things will continue to happen unless the American government changes its foreign policy.

Can�t Americans see that all the destruction their government is causing will keep getting back to them?

Yes, it is a very common thought that islamic terrorism is not an aggression, but a reaction to what-of-bad rich countries do in the rest of the world. But it isn't so. Islam fanatism has nothing to do with globalization, banana republics, multinational industries or the third world. Futhermore, islam fanatism has always been working in Islamic countries as it works nowadays in Europe. And it is led by citizens of those countries: Moroccan muslim fanatics make terrorism in Morocco as English (English!) muslim fanatics make terrorism in England. Their purposes are the same everywhere, and they are far from the will to make of the world a better place.

Display posts from previous:

	Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad