This week's book giveaway is in the OCAJP 8 forum. We're giving away four copies of OCA Java SE 8 Programmer I Study Guide and have Edward Finegan & Robert Liguori on-line! See this thread for details.
Worth reading... I hear there's a war on the way. I hear it's going to be between the civilised world and the rest. Between the free democracies of the world and the rest. Between barbarians and the rest. Terrorism, my Prime Minister Vajpayee said the other day, is a 'great threat to our people, our values and our way of life.' The attack on America, he went on, 'is a stark and terrible reminder of the power and reach of the terrorists to destroy innocent lives and challenge the civilised order in this world.' And in this coming war, President Bush announced, 'you're either with us or against us,' forgive me if not quite in those words. 'Us,' it's safe to assume, refers to this civilised world.
So as an ordinary human being, horrified and angered by the brutality of September 11, in the fond belief that I'm somewhat civilised, I'm anxious to choose my side. But I'm somewhat baffled as well. I look for this civilisation and I begin to wonder: just where is it? When Chile's elected leader Salvador Allende was murdered and one of the century's worst dictators Auguste Pinochet, put in place to spend a generation molesting that country and killing its citizens, was that civilisation? When a vast Soviet army overran Afghanistan and reduced that once fabled country to rubble, its proud people so devastated and demoralised that they cannot rise to shake off the tormentors who drove out the Soviets, well, was that civilisation? When Rwanda's Hutus erupted in a hellish orgy of hatred and slaughtered their Tutsi countrymen for three months and the rest of the world preferred to look the other way, even quibbled over whether this genocide really was genocide, now was that civilisation? When, perhaps inspired by a hate-spewing figure whom a perverse Afghan cabal fiercely protects, maniacs with knives hijack planes and pilot them into two towering buildings and a squat one, taking 6,000 unsuspecting humans with them to fiery deaths, hey, is that civilisation? When in the capital of the world's most populous democracy, a prime minister is assassinated and that is excuse enough to slaughter 3,000 Sikhs, and the country -- India, of course -- has not for 17 years found the will to punish the powerful men who led that slaughter, hello, is that civilisation? When Russians and Chechens maul and murder each other in arguably the world's most vicious war, look upon each other as just vermin to be exterminated, hmm, is that civilisation? When Israel elects a leader whose idea of negotiating peace is to shove ever more Jewish settlements down Palestinian throats, devoting ever more of his country's armed forces to "protecting" these illogical and unsustainable enclaves, thereby spilling ever more blood in that Holy Land, tell me won't you please tell me, is that civilisation? I could go on, you know. South Africa, the Congo, Bombay, Turkey, Cambodia, Nicaragua: I could really go on and so could you. So when this is the wealth of civilisation on display, year round, the world over, it's enough to leave a man scratching a hairy scalp in despair. Just where are the values that are 'under threat,' the 'civilised order' that's being destroyed? And what's a man to do when he's told 'you're either with us or against us'? Where does his revulsion at, for example, the American role in Allende's murder and Pinochet's regime place him: with or against? Is he 'with us' because he thinks the hijacking pilots, the men who murder in Kashmir, are terrorist scum? Or is he 'against us' because he thinks the murderers of the Sikhs are also terrorist scum? Now I hardly mean to say that there are no principles of civilised life that are worth protecting. Nor that they suffer no threats today. Nor even do I want to introduce a meaningless moral relativism into the debates we are all wrestling with these days. The assaults on the WTC and the Pentagon were, as Robert Fisk says, crimes against humanity. Period. But I do mean to say, let's be careful when we rush to stake our claim to be good. Let's be careful when we talk so easily of civilisational struggles between Good and Evil. Partly because we all have our dark little secrets that will come tumbling out. But mostly because this is an empty exercise in futility. It produces the grotesque scenario that is unfolding before our eyes: the massing of a mighty military machine to launch an assault on possibly the world's most ruined and desperate society; and these preparations cheered on by my country. Such an assault will kill precisely the wrong people, ruin that society even more, and leave all the hatreds intact, ready to strike again in more spectacularly horrific fashion. There's no good there, and certainly no civilisation. That is no war against terrorism that I want to be part of, that I want my country to be part of, that I want fought at all. That is, to repeat, just futility. It is futile because it can never stamp out terrorism, just as the mere spraying of pesticides never eradicates malaria. You do eradicate malaria by starving its carriers of the conditions in which they thrive. In much the same way, as so many have pointed out, you destroy terrorism by addressing the conditions that spawn terrorists. Which means: no longer must we tolerate a world in which a minority lives pampered, wealthy, protected lives while the majority scrounges outside for the next gulp of water. That applies to the USA and Bangladesh just as much as it applies to Malabar Hill and the homeless beggars who roam its streets. (Why must a civilised world think it is acceptable that some of its residents sift through garbage for food?). No longer must justice be so selective that it is injustice above all. That applies to murdered Palestinians and disappeared Chileans just as much as it applies to the silent victims of riots in India. (Why must a civilised world think it is acceptable that riots "just happen" and so are normal?). No longer must corrupt or hate-mongering "leaders" be allowed to hold power, escape their crimes, just because they serve particular political purposes. That applies to Pinochet and Mobutu and Mubarak and Nawaz Sharif just as much as it applies to Thackeray and Jayalalithaa. (And yes, why must a civilised world think a Mobutu must be propped up only because he claims to be a bulwark against Marxism?). In short, and we might as well face it: terrorism didn't just arrive on our planet one recent morning. Oppression, poverty and injustice produce the hatreds that send terrorists to flight school in Florida. Tackling those enormous but never insurmountable problems, understanding that if they persist we are all threatened, will choke off terrorism. In that sense, the planes that sliced into the WTC were true children of this globalization we hear so much about. With one cataclysmic explosion, they woke up America and the entire globe. Not just to the "power and reach of the terrorists", but also to the consequences of the illusion that "we" are safe behind our gates and barbed wire and security guards and immigration laws and eyes that are so firmly shut to the misery that wallows beyond their lids. Whoever "we" are, the misery now belongs to us all. It always did, but if we chose not to know it before, we know now. We can't afford not to. 'No man is an island,' John Donne did indeed write in 1623, but take more heed of what he wrote only a few words later: Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Yes: after the bell tolled so horribly in NYC and DC, let's know that it tolled for us. How must "we" respond? First, find and punish the men responsible, bin Laden if it was him. Not by landing a gigantic force in a ravaged country, but by the same kind of tight, focused operation that found gruesome success on September 11. I am no military man, so I have no idea how difficult that will be. But however difficult, it is the only way to get the culprits. That done, open 'our' eyes to all that's around us. Free of political bias, free of hypocrisy, free of hollow words about "our" civilised values and their "barbarity" and everybody's religion. Let's understand that the way we live, the choices we make, the things we do, the policies we follow, cannot but leave their mark. In all humility, let's each recognize our own mistakes and failures, whether religious, societal, political or personal. Let's rebuild beginning from that foundation. I have no idea how difficult all that will be either. But however difficult, it is the only way to launch a successful assault on terrorism. If it happens, that kind of introspection is far more than the way to eradicate terrorism, more even than the only possible silver lining to the sickness of September 11. It is the very meaning of civilisation. http://www.rediff.com/news/2001/sep/28dilip.htm
Duh. The president of the United States is talking and he uses the word "us" and you have to ask what that means??? No "us" does not mean "all of civilization". It means the United States.
"JavaRanch, where the deer and the Certified play" - David O'Meara
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
Oppression, poverty and injustice produce the hatreds that send terrorists to flight school in Florida.
Actually various forms of terrorism have been around since the caveman days. The human species has a violent streak in it naturally. One hopes that is can be subdued, but I assure you - nothing that the US did CREATED terrorism. There are always going to be angry people - even in a rich country like the US, those that feel that they don't have AS MUCH as the rest get angry - even if they are RICH by Afghanistani standards. Yes Afghanistan has caused terrorism by the oppresion, poverty and injustice that they created - they just like to re-direct the anger at us so that it doesn't backfire on them.
'US' are those who spell the word as civilization 'THEM' are those who spell it some other way Dan
Joined: Nov 22, 2008
A Moment For Truth Dave Hunt, Bend, Oregon (Author of Seduction of Christianity, etc.) America awakened September 11 to appalling scenes on TV of passenger planes deliberately crashing into the towers of the World Trade Centre and into the Pentagon. Stunned disbelief gave way to the question, who could so carefully plan and efficiently execute such incredibly inhumane destruction and slaughter? What cause could so powerfully motivate educated and trained individuals to sacrifice their own lives and the lives of so many total strangers in this manner? In the minds of civilized people these men were unbelievable fanatics. But were they? Could one call the spiritual leader of an entire major country a "fanatic," a man universally recognized as properly representing his religion? Who would know his religion better than the spiritual leader himself? Such was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini when he declared, "The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah."(1) Is that fanaticism? And could you call the founder of a major world religion a fanatic? Muhammad, who with his followers slaughtered thousands in establishing and spreading Islam, said of Muslims, "Who relinquishes his faith, kill him....(2) I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they testify there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger." (3) Was Muhammad a fanatic? Are they fanatics who obey him today in exacting the death penalty upon Muslims (as in Afghanistan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) who for the sake of conscience convert to another religion? Do we need a new definition of "fanatic"? There is a certain hypocrisy in the new outrage with which America and the world now view terrorism. History's bloodiest, most vicious and successful terrorist, Yasser Arafat, has been given the Nobel Peace Prize and embraced as a world statesman. He is proof to would-be imitators that terrorism pays big. The United Nations, European Union, and countless world political and religious leaders have sided with him in his terrorism against Israel. Arafat and his PLO held the record for the largest hijacking (four aircraft in a single operation) -- which has just been equaled, the greatest number of hostages held at one time (300), the greatest number of people shot at an airport, the largest ransom collected ($5 million paid by Lufthansa), the greatest variety of targets (40 civilian passenger aircraft, five passenger ships, 30 embassies or diplomatic ministries plus innumerable fuel depots and factories), etc. (4) Instead of being tried by an international tribunal as were the Nazi and Serbian leadership, Arafat's bloody exploits gained for him acceptance as a leader for peace! In his brief speech to the nation the morning of the 12th, President Bush declared that the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. were "acts of war." Indeed, they were -- jihad ("holy war"). He said that "freedom and democracy are under attack [but] we will not allow this enemy to win the war by...restricting our freedoms." Is it a mere coincidence that the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and of vote and conscience which we hold so dear in America are suppressed in every Muslim country? Who dares to make the obvious connection between this declaration of war against America, and the declaration of war against the entire world by Muhammad in the seventh century, a part of Islam ever since? Since its inception, jihad has been waged by Islamic warriors to spread that religion of violence and hatred. Islam does not change. Rioting Muslim mobs invariably chant in their "fanaticism," "Allah is great! Allah is great!" In the wake of this terrible act of "holy war," our President and Congressional leaders referred to God numerous times and invoked His blessing in tracking down the perpetrators of this infamous deed. The God of the Bible to whom they referred is not Allah, the god of Islam, whom the attacking terrorists served so faithfully! We may be certain that the hijackers were not Israelis or evangelical Christians. Never! The simple but horrible fact is that only the religion of Islam could supply the motivation for what they did. Why are Muslims responsible for most terrorism in the world today? There is a definitive and foundational reason. It would be extremely naive to imagine that terrorists who are willing to blow themselves up in Israel or to crash a plane at the loss of their own and many other lives do so for some commendable humanitarian cause. The courage comes solely from a unique doctrine of Islam. Abu-Bakr, the first Caliph to succeed Muhammad (and one of the few to whom Muhammad promised Paradise without martyrdom), declared that even if he had one foot in Paradise he could not trust Allah to let him in. The only sure way in Islam of achieving Paradise is to sacrifice one's life in jihad. Yes, suicide is forbidden as self-murder. But to sacrifice one's life in killing infidels carries the highest reward. And what reward does Paradise bring to the jihad martyr? He is promised a palace of pearls in which are 70 mansions; inside each mansion are 70 houses and in each house a bed on which are 70 sheets and on each sheet a beautiful virgin. He is assured that he will have the appetite and strength of 100 men for food and sex. This is the fantastic dream that is fed to Muslim boys from earliest childhood. This motivation alone gives the reckless courage and determination to train and execute terrorist deeds in which they sacrifice their lives in bringing death and destruction to "the enemies of Allah." America has been called "the Great Satan" by Muslim leaders around the world. Thus the strike at America was a strike for Allah against his chief enemy. Palestinians danced in the streets to celebrate the destruction in America, shouting victory to Allah. The day before the attack CNN showed routine footage of third grade children in a West Bank school chanting death to Israel. Only indoctrination into Islam makes possible such incredible scenes and the terrorism they celebrate. Though people of good will naturally recoil from attaching blame to a major world religion itself, we can no longer afford such sentimentality. No longer dare we allow Islam to escape its undeniable responsibility. Yet former President Bush called Islam a peace-loving religion. The devastating acts of war by Islamic terrorists against the United States were greeted by naive statements from well-intentioned government leaders to the effect that we must distinguish between terrorism perpetrated by extremist groups and Islam itself which is peaceful. Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam. In the Qur'an, Allah commands Muslims, "Take not the Jews and Christians as friends....Slay the idolaters [non-Muslims] wherever ye find them.... Fight against such...as believe not in Allah..." (Surah 5:51; 9:5,29,41, etc..). Though most Muslims would shrink from obeying such commands, this is official Islam and it cannot change without admitting that Muhammad was a false prophet and murderer. Several years ago Steven Emerson produced for PBS an excellent video titled Jihad In America. Its cameras went directly inside cell groups associated with mosques here in America where eager young Muslims were being recruited for jihad against the United States. Muslim leaders are shown giving speeches about bringing America to its knees through terrorism and making cold-blooded statements such as the following from Fayiz Azzam in Brooklyn in 1989: "Blood must flow, there must be widows, orphans, hands and limbs must be severed and limbs and blood must be spread everywhere in order that Allah's religion stand on its feet!" Yes, Allah's religion is the motivation! In Kansas, in 1988, another leader recruiting Islamic holy warriors against the United States exults, "O, brothers! After Afghanistan [where Muslim "freedom fighters," aided by the CIA, drove out the Soviets and installed the brutal Taliban regime] nothing in the world is impossible for us any more! There are no superpowers or minipowers. What matters is will power that springs from our religious belief!" Yes, religious belief, the particular belief of Islam, is the only motivation capable of inspiring such "fanaticism." At the beginning of the video, Emerson, who had tracked international terrorism for the prior ten years, reported on what he called "networks of Islamic extremists" inside the US. He accurately warned that "for these militants jihad is a holy war, an armed struggle to defeat nonbelievers, or infidels, and their ultimate goal is to establish an Islamic [worldwide] empire." Yet he later back-pedaled into the incredible statement that "Islam as a religion does not condone violence; the radicals represent only themselves-an extremist and violent fringe...." That is simply not true. It is not because men are Arabs or extremists that they turn to terrorism, but because they are devout Muslims. Yet who will face this obvious fact? Hatred of Israel and the call to destroy America for supporting her are also underlying themes of the terrorists seen in the documentary. Another Muslim leader in the US declares that Washington's Capitol Hill is "Zionist-occupied territory," that the Jews control Congress, and that the United States deserves what it gets so long as it continues to support Israel. Referring repeatedly to "Islamic holy warriors," the video documented as clearly as could be done that Islam is the driving force behind terrorism. Astonishingly, however, the narrator and counter-terrorism experts being interviewed repeatedly declared that Islam was not to be blamed but only the "fanaticism" of certain individuals. For example, Paul Bremer, former Ambassador-at-Large for counter-terrorism for the State Department, said it is "important to make a distinction...the vast majority of Muslims and Arabs are peace loving." It is true that the vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and would protest that they oppose terrorism. Our sympathy is with them. However, should they not ask themselves why they follow a religion founded upon violence which from its very inception has been spread with the sword? Under Muhammad's leadership in the seventh century, thousands of Arabs (and many Jews and Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula were killed by Islam's fierce "holy warriors" to force that religion upon the Arab world. Upon Muhammad's death, most Arabians abandoned Islam, imagining that they were free at last. Swiftly, tens of thousands of Arabs were slaughtered in the Wars of Apostasy, which forced Arabia back under Allah. From that base Islam was spread everywhere with the sword. On radio and TV, during that black Tuesday in September which we can never forget, we were repeatedly told by well-intentioned government officials that we must be careful not to blame Islam for what a few fanatics had done. In fact, terrorists act in direct obedience to Muhammad, the Qur'an, Allah and Islam. While nominal Muslims reject the idea, all Islamic scholars agree that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to use violence whenever possible to spread Islam until it has taken over the world. We need to face some simple questions: Is not the attempt to force them into Islam the cause of the cruel enslavement, torture and slaughter of millions in southern Sudan? Is not Islam the driving force behind the murderous and destructive riots against Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere? Is it not the enforcement of Islamic law that makes the Taliban deny all civil rights to those under its control in Afghanistan? And what is it but Islam that unites the otherwise divided Arab world in an implacable and unreasoning hatred against Israel? No Arab map in the world admits Israel's existence. It is only Islam's claim that Ishmael, not Isaac, was the son of promise and that the Holy Land belongs to them which unites Arabs in the "fanatical" determination to destroy the Jews. There is a natural reluctance to accept any statement which seems to be a prejudiced attack upon a world religion. It is the fear of such prejudice which prevents the world from facing the truth. But is it prejudice to state the plain facts? No, it is not -- but it is difficult to face the truth that Islam itself is a religion of violence and that those who practice it are not extremists and fanatics in the ordinary sense of those words, but sincere followers of Muhammad. The world has sided with Islam in its false claim to the land of Israel, which is now inaccurately called Palestine. This promised land, given to Israel by the God of the Bible, has been occupied by Jews continuously for the last 3,000 years, and they are the only people to have done so. In recognition of that undeniable historic fact, all of "Palestine" was to be given to the Jews for a national homeland by a 1917 ruling of the League of Nations. But steadily the Jews were betrayed by Britain's administration of this mandate (and the demise of the British Empire can be dated from that betrayal); the land was parceled out to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Israel is now accused of "occupying" land which actually has been theirs for 3,000 years. The come-lately "Palestinians" are sustained by the world in the lie that they are the original owners of this land. As a result, terrorism is perpetrated not only against Israel but now in this latest act against the United States to apply pressure to force Israel out of its rightful land and to spread Islam around the world. We have arrived at a defining moment when truth could triumph if the world would recognize that terrorists are not "fanatics" but devout fundamentalist Muslims who are earnestly following their religion. This recognition could bring fresh sympathy for Muslims of all nationalities who are tragically trapped in that system. The expos� of the truth could embarrass Muslim nations into opening the Islamic Curtain and allowing freedom to enter their borders. It could be a new day of open evangelism for the world where not force but love and reason permit each person to determine the faith he would embrace from his heart.
Joined: Nov 22, 2008
America's list of terrorism Ever since the United States Army massacred 300 Lakotas in 1890, American forces have intervened elsewhere around the globe 100 times. Indeed the United States has sent troops abroad or militarily struck other countries' territory 216 times since independence from Britain. Since 1945 the United States has intervened in more than 20 countries throughout the world. Since World War II, the United States actually dropped bombs on 23 countries. These include: China 1945-46, Korea 1950-53, China 1950-53, Guatemala 1954, Indonesia 1958, Cuba 1959-60, Guatemala 1960, Congo 1964, Peru 1965, Laos 1964-73, Vietnam 1961-73, Cambodia 1969-70, Guatemala 1967-69, Grenada 1983, Lebanon 1984, Libya 1986, El Salvador 1980s, Nicaragua 1980s, Panama 1989, Iraq 1991-1999, Sudan 1998, Afghanistan 1998, and Yugoslavia 1999. Post World War II, the United States has also assisted in over 20 different coups throughout the world, and the CIA was responsible for half a dozen assassinations of political heads of state. The following is a comprehensive summary of the imperialist strategy of the United States over the span of the past century: Argentina - 1890 - Troops sent to Buenos Aires to protect business interests. Chile - 1891 - Marines sent to Chile and clashed with nationalist rebels. Haiti - 1891 - American troops suppress a revolt by Black workers on United States-claimed Navassa Island.
Hawaii - 1893 - Navy sent to Hawaii to overthrow the independent kingdom - Hawaii annexed by the United States. Nicaragua - 1894 - Troops occupied Bluefields, a city on the Caribbean Sea, for a month. China - 1894-95 - Navy, Army, and Marines landed during the Sino-Japanese War. Korea - 1894-96 - Troops kept in Seoul during the war.
Panama - 1895 - Army, Navy, and Marines landed in the port city of Corinto. China - 1894-1900 - Troops occupied China during the Boxer Rebellion. Philippines - 1898-1910 - Navy and Army troops landed after the Philippines fell during the Spanish-American War; 600,000 Filipinos were killed. Cuba - 1898-1902 - Troops seized Cuba in the Spanish-American War; the United States still maintains troops at Guantanamo Bay today. Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy Puerto Rico today. Nicaragua - 1898 - Marines landed at the port of San Juan del Sur. Samoa - 1899 - Troops landed as a result over the battle for succession to the throne. Panama - 1901-14 - Navy supported the revolution when Panama claimed independence from Colombia. American troops have occupied the Canal Zone since 1901 when construction for the canal began. Honduras - 1903 - Marines landed to intervene during a revolution. Dominican Rep 1903-04 - Troops landed to protect American interests during a revolution. Korea - 1904-05 - Marines landed during the Russo-Japanese War. Cuba - 1906-09 - Troops landed during an election. Nicaragua - 1907 - Troops landed and a protectorate was set up. Honduras - 1907 - Marines landed during Honduras' war with Nicaragua. Panama - 1908 - Marines sent in during Panama's election. Nicaragua - 1910 - Marines landed for a second time in Bluefields and Corinto. Honduras - 1911 - Troops sent in to protect American interests during Honduras' civil war. China - 1911-41 - Navy and troops sent to China during continuous flare-ups. Cuba - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests in Havana. Panama - 1912 - Marines landed during Panama's election. Honduras - 1912 - Troops sent in to protect American interests. Nicaragua - 1912-33 - Troops occupied Nicaragua and fought guerrillas during its 20-year civil war. Mexico - 1913 - Navy evacuated Americans during revolution. Dominican Rep 1914 - Navy fought with rebels over Santo Domingo. Mexico - 1914-18 - Navy and troops sent in to intervene against nationalists. Haiti - 1914-34 - Troops occupied Haiti after a revolution and occupied Haiti for 19 years. Dominican Rep 1916-24 - Marines occupied the Dominican Republic for eight years. Cuba - 1917-33 - Troops landed and occupied Cuba for 16 years; Cuba became an economic protectorate. World War I - 1917-18 - Navy and Army sent to Europe to fight the Axis powers. Russia - 1918-22 - Navy and troops sent to eastern Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution; Army made five landings. Honduras - 1919 - Marines sent during Honduras' national elections. Guatemala - 1920 - Troops occupied Guatemala for two weeks during a union strike. Turkey - 1922 - Troops fought nationalists in Smyrna. China - 1922-27 - Navy and Army troops deployed during a nationalist revolt. Honduras - 1924-25 - Troops landed twice during a national election. Panama - 1925 - Troops sent in to put down a general strike. China - 1927-34 - Marines sent in and stationed for seven years throughout China. El Salvador - 1932 - Naval warships deployed during the FMLN revolt under Marti. World War II - 1941-45 - Military fought the Axis powers: Japan, Germany, and Italy. Yugoslavia - 1946 - Navy deployed off the coast of Yugoslavia in response to the downing of an American plane. Uruguay - 1947 - Bombers deployed as a show of military force. Greece - 1947-49 - United States operations insured a victory for the far right in national "elections." Germany - 1948 - Military deployed in response to the Berlin blockade; the Berlin airlift lasts 444 days. Philippines - 1948-54 - The CIA directed a civil war against the Filipino Huk revolt. Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce. Korean War - 1951-53 - Military sent in during the war. Iran - 1953 - The CIA orchestrated the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadegh and restored the Shah to power. Vietnam - 1954 - The United States offered weapons to the French in the battle against Ho Chi Minh and the Viet Minh. Guatemala - 1954 - The CIA overthrew the democratically elected Arbenz and placed Colonel Armas in power. Egypt - 1956 - Marines deployed to evacuate foreigners after Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal. Lebanon - 1958 - Navy supported an Army occupation of Lebanon during its civil war. Panama - 1958 - Troops landed after Panamanians demonstrations threatened the Canal Zone. Vietnam - 1950s-75 - Vietnam War. Cuba - 1961 - The CIA-directed Bay of Pigs invasions failed to overthrow the Castro government. Cuba - 1962 - The Navy quarantines Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Laos - 1962 - Military occupied Laos during its civil war against the Pathet Lao guerrillas. Panama - 1964 - Troops sent in and Panamanians shot while protesting the United States presence in the Canal Zone. Indonesia - 1965 - The CIA orchestrated a military coup. Dominican Rep- 1965-66 - Troops deployed during a national election. Guatemala - 1966-67 - Green Berets sent in. Cambodia - 1969-75 - Military sent in after the Vietnam War expanded into Cambodia. Oman - 1970 - Marines landed to direct a possible invasion into Iran. Laos - 1971-75 - Americans carpet-bomb the countryside during Laos' civil war. Chile - 1973 - The CIA orchestrated a coup, killing President Allende who had been popularly elected. The CIA helped to establish a military regime under General Pinochet. Cambodia - 1975 - Twenty-eight Americans killed in an effort to retrieve the crew of the Mayaquez, which had been seized. Angola - 1976-92 - The CIA backed South African rebels fighting against Marxist Angola. Iran - 1980 - Americans aborted a rescue attempt to liberate 52 hostages seized in the Teheran embassy. Libya - 1981 - American fighters shoot down two Libyan fighters. El Salvador - 1981-92 - The CIA, troops, and advisers aid in El Salvador's war against the FMLN. Nicaragua - 1981-90 - The CIA and NSC directed the Contra War against the Sandinistas. Lebanon - 1982-84 - Marines occupied Beirut during Lebanon's civil war; 241 were killed in the American barracks and Reagan "redeployed" the troops to the Mediterranean. Honduras - 1983-89 - Troops sent in to build bases near the Honduran border. Grenada - 1983-84 - American invasion overthrew the Maurice Bishop government. Iran - 1984 - American fighters shot down two Iranian planes over the Persian Gulf. Libya - 1986 - American fighters hit targets in and around the capital city of Tripoli. Bolivia - 1986 - The Army assisted government troops on raids of cocaine areas. Iran - 1987-88 - The United States intervened on the side of Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War. Libya - 1989 - Navy shot down two more Libyan jets. Virgin Islands - 1989 - Troops landed during unrest among Virgin Island peoples. Philippines - 1989 - Air Force provided air cover for government during coup. Panama - 1989-90 - 27,000 Americans landed in overthrow of President Noriega; over 2,000 Panama civilians were killed. Liberia - 1990 - Troops entered Liberia to evacuate foreigners during civil war. Saudi Arabia - 1990-91 - American troops sent to Saudi Arabia, which was a staging area in the war against Iraq. Kuwait - 1991 - Troops sent into Kuwait to turn back Saddam Hussein. Somalia - 1992-94 - Troops occupied Somalia during civil war. Bosnia - 1993-95 - Air Force jets bombed "no-fly zone" during civil war in Yugoslavia. Haiti - 1994-96 - American troops and Navy provided a blockade against Haiti's military government. The CIA restored Aristide to power. Zaire - 1996-97 - Marines sent into Rwanda Hutus' refugee camps in the area where the Congo revolution began. Albania - 1997 - Troops deployed during evacuation of foreigners. Sudan - 1998 - American missiles destroyed a pharmaceutical complex where alleged nerve gas components were manufactured. Afghanistan - 1998 - Missiles launched towards alleged Afghan terrorist training camps. Yugoslavia - 1999 - Bombings and missile attacks carried out by the United States in conjunction with NATO in the 11 week war against Milosevic. Iraq - 1998-2001 - Missiles launched into Baghdad and other large Iraq cities for four days. American jets enforced "no-fly zone" and continued to hit Iraqi targets since December 1998. These **100** instances of American military intervention did not include times when the United States: (1) deployed military police overseas; (2) mobilized the National Guard; (3) sent Navy ships off the coast of numerous countries as a show of strength; (4) sent additional troops to areas where Americans were already stationed; (5) carried out covert actions where American forces were not under the direct rule of an American command;
(6) used small hostage rescue units; (7) used American pilots to fly foreign planes; ( carried out military training and advisory programs which did not involve direct combat.
U. S. Government Assassination Plots ==================================== Following is a list of prominent foreign leaders whose assassination (or planning for same) the United States has been involved in since the end of Second World War. The list does not include several assassinations in various parts of the world carried out by anti-Castro Cubans employed by CIA and headquartered in the United States: LIST A: NON MUSLIMS 1949 - KIm Koo, Korean opposition leader 1950's - CIA/Neo-Nazi hit list of numerous political figures in West Germany 1955 - Jose' Antonio Remon, President of Panama 1950's Chou En-lai, Prime Minister of China, several attempts on his life 1951 - Kim Il Sung, Premiere of North Korea 1950s (mid) - Claro M. Recto, Philippines opposition leader 1955 - Jawar Lal Nehru, Prime Minister of India 1959 and 1963 - Norodom Sihanouk, leader of Cambodia 1950s-70s - Jose Figueres, President of Costa Rica, two attempts on his life 1961 - Francois "Papa Doc"Duvalier, leader of Haiti 1961 - Patrice Lumumba , Prime Minister of Congo (Zaire) 1961 - Gen. Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic 1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam 1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba, more than 15 attempts on his life 1960s - Raul Castro, high official in government of Cuba 1965 - Francisco Caamanao, Dominican Republic opposition leader 1965 - Pierre Ngendandumwe, Prime Minister of Burundi 1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France 1967 - Che Guevara, Cuban leader 1970 - Salvadore Allende, President of Chile 1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander-in-Chief of Army, Chile 1970s and 1981 - Gen. Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama 1972 - General Manuel Noriega, Chief of Panama Intelligence 1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire 1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica 1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua 1984 - The nine commandantes of the Sandanista National Directorate 1980's - Dr. Gerald Bull, Canadian Ballistics Scientist assassinated by Mossad in Belgium. Partial List of Muslim Leaders Assassinated or Attempted Assassinations 1950's Sukarno, President of Indonesia 1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President of Egypt 1960 Brigadier General, Abdul Karim Kassem, Leader of Iraq 1980-86 Muammar Qaddafi, Leader of Libya, several plots and attempts upon his life 1982 Ayatullah Khomeini, Leader of Iran 1983 General Ahmed Dlimi, Moroccan army Commander 1985 Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadllallah, Lebanese Shiite Leader (80 people killed in that attempt) 1991 Saddam Hussein, Leader of Iraq Reference: Blum, William, "KILLING HOPE - U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II," Appendix III U.S. Government Assassination Plots, page 453, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine 1995. ISBN 1-56751-052-3 Very likely Victims : April 4, 1979 - Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, Leader of Pakistan, for pursuing making of Nuclear Bomb. August, 1988. General Ziaul Haq, Military Leader of Pakistan. March 25, 1975 - King Faisal of Saudi Arabia through his Nephew, Saudi Arabia for imposing 1973 Oil Embargo. List of Known Assassination Plots 1950's Sukarno, President of Indonesia 1957 Gamal Abdul Nasser, President 2001 Since early this year more than 40 Palestinian leaders assassinated through surrogate Israel.
Joined: Sep 29, 2000
We obviously have a very different definition of terrorism. Yes the United States has a military. Yes it uses it. That is not the definition of terrorism. Plus you present a whole lot of undocumented stuff as fact - as though we should blindly believe / agree with you - not.
Hey DKL / KMA / US Terrorism / Great India / etc: Is it really necessary to dump the complete text of these articles on the JavaRanch server? We're all very impressed that you've figured out how to cut and paste, but it's very tedious to see these lengthy articles posted here when a simple link would do just as well. Servers do have finite space, and wasting it is not going to help your case.
I'm not sure what the point of all these list are. We have World War II listed alongside The Boxer Rebellion. You could probably make a list this long for Sweden if you include everything they ever did with their military. The assassination list is a bit confusing because a lot of the people on the list aren't dead. And I doubt the CIA ever planned to kill De Gaulle.
"Puerto Rico - 1898 - present - Troops seized Puerto Rico in the Spanish-American War and still occupy Puerto Rico today."
"Puerto Rico - 1950 - Military helped crush an independence rebellion in Ponce."
If at least those two ones are absolutely incorrect, I wonder how many are. That looks like a cheap copy and paste job that doesn't mean anything. And by the way, don't forget the Cold War that we won.
Whats wrong with these people. Its like they are trying to justify the deaths at the WTC? I think its time we kicked some Thaliban ASS...those guys need to go!!! I watched a documentary on them and they are terrorists in every sense of the word!! Its crazy what they have done to their own people, not to mention sick. [This message has been edited by Faisal Dosani (edited September 28, 2001).]
----------------------------------------------------------- <quote>Could one call the spiritual leader of an entire major country a "fanatic," a man universally recognized as properly representing his religion? Who would know his religion better than the spiritual leader himself? Such was Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini when he declared, "The purest joy in Islam is to kill and be killed for Allah."(1) Is that fanaticism? And could you call the founder of a major world religion a fanatic? Muhammad, who with his followers slaughtered thousands in establishing and spreading Islam, said of Muslims, "Who relinquishes his faith, kill him....(2) I have been ordered by Allah to fight with people till they testify there is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his messenger." (3) Was Muhammad a fanatic? Are they fanatics who obey him today in exacting the death penalty upon Muslims (as in Afghanistan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) who for the sake of conscience convert to another religion? Do we need a new definition of "fanatic"? </quote> ------------------------------------------------------------- "WELL SAID KMA" , dont worry , this "fanatics" has few years left of existence , they will be history than...
Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Imperialism is a system in which a country rules other countries, sometimes having used force to obtain power over them. Afghanistan, Indonesia, Sudan ...
Originally posted by KMA: In the minds of civilized people these men were unbelievable fanatics.
And could you call the founder of a major world religion a fanatic? Muhammad, who with his followers slaughtered thousands in establishing and spreading Islam,
You should verify your sources. You are mistaken big time. Don't just read one biased book and make these remarks online. Try to be well read.
Are they fanatics who obey him today in exacting the death penalty upon Muslims (as in Afghanistan, the Arab Emirates, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan) who for the sake of conscience convert to another religion?
Try to understand that there is no single country/government that practices Islam let alone true Islam. These countries you mention are governed by people who abuse the large population.
There is a certain hypocrisy in the new outrage with which America and the world now view terrorism. History's bloodiest, most vicious and successful terrorist, Yasser Arafat, has been given the Nobel Peace Prize and embraced as a world statesman.
Shows the hopelessness in the communication. It shows the hopelessness in ever achieving an understanding so that a dialogue can be carried.
Is it a mere coincidence that the freedom of speech, religion, the press, and of vote and conscience which we hold so dear in America are suppressed in every Muslim country?
Again there is no such thing as a "Muslim" country, yes there are countries with large and sometimes all population belonging to religion of Islam but these are being governed by abusive governments who for the most part play into the hands of the west.
Since its inception, jihad has been waged by Islamic warriors to spread that religion of violence and hatred. Islam does not change.
You have a lot to read. Try reading about how Islam came to Spain and remained for more than 600 years. There was no hatred there but a lot of learning from each other.
The God of the Bible to whom they referred is not Allah, the god of Islam, whom the attacking terrorists served so faithfully!
You are wrong. The God of Abraham is the same God of Muhammad, therefore God of Christian and Jews is the same God. Have you ever read the Quran.
We may be certain that the hijackers were not Israelis or evangelical Christians.
Remember David Koreish in Waco, Remember Baruch in Israel who killed Muslims in the Masjids - If Christianity and Judaism were not attacked then than why attack Islam. It's Ignorance that is speaking loudest in your post rather than Hate.
Why are Muslims responsible for most terrorism in the world today? There is a definitive and foundational reason.
The terrorists responsible were led by evil thoughts and delusions. They happened to be muslim and from countries where the population tends to be wary of the west and its policies.
The only sure way in Islam of achieving Paradise is to sacrifice one's life in jihad. Yes, suicide is forbidden as self-murder. But to sacrifice one's life in killing infidels carries the highest reward.
Jihad means many things. One can achieve paradise by struggling against some captors (which is Jihaad). Sacrificing one's life to kill innocent civilians is murder and suicide - even in Islam.
This is the fantastic dream that is fed to Muslim boys from earliest childhood.
In the camps of Bin Ladin, maybe. But the rest of the muslim boys get to concentrate on their ABC's. Limit your generalizations.
Palestinians danced in the streets to celebrate the destruction in America, shouting victory to Allah. The day before the attack CNN showed routine footage of third grade children in a West Bank school chanting death to Israel.
Israel versus Palestine is a nationalism and racism issue, don't mix the two up. Palestinians obviously tend to see U.S. and Israel as one since it is the U.S. weapons that are used to kill them. Upon interviews with the elders who were celebrating, it was discovered they had no clue that many deaths are inevitable due to the tragedy. Obviously you didn't see the candlelit vigil nor the blood drive. There was a general condemnation and shock over the tragedy all over the muslim world. In case you didn't know, there were muslims who died there too (1000 of them.)
Only indoctrination into Islam makes possible such incredible scenes and the terrorism they celebrate.
No, I think being born in a war ravaged part of the world and facing uncertainty and death eversince birth can dim the senses of anyone.
Though people of good will naturally recoil from attaching blame to a major world religion itself, we can no longer afford such sentimentality. No longer dare we allow Islam to escape its undeniable responsibility. Yet former President Bush called Islam a peace-loving religion.
How can you define a religion of 1.2 billion people by the action of a few hundred people. Study some math lately. The terrorists are just some bad population that need to be exterminated.
Yet there are more than 100 verses in the Qur'an advocating the use of violence to spread Islam.
Read the Quran in context otherwise you are making the same mistake that the terrorists are!
However, should they not ask themselves why they follow a religion founded upon violence which from its very inception has been spread with the sword?
Excuse me, but Indonesia is the nation with most muslims in the world and yet I don't remember a single Arab with a sword entering that area.
Under Muhammad's leadership in the seventh century, thousands of Arabs (and many Jews and Christians) in the Arabian Peninsula were killed by Islam's fierce "holy warriors" to force that religion upon the Arab world.
And yet there are christians and jews in the region, how strange. Or is it that you are wrong. If you read the books, you will find yourself to be wrong.
Upon Muhammad's death, most Arabians abandoned Islam, imagining that they were free at last. Swiftly, tens of thousands of Arabs were slaughtered in the Wars of Apostasy, which forced Arabia back under Allah. From that base Islam was spread everywhere with the sword.
If that were true, there should be no non-muslims in Arabian Peninsula (in case you don't know many of the Palestinians are Christian.). Islam spread to Indonesia and China via merchants. Nigeria is a country with half the population Christian and the other half Muslim. There are pockets of jews all over Asia and North Africa - which wouldn't have been achievable if all were killed by the 'sword' (which was just the traditional weapon of those days anyway.)
In fact, terrorists act in direct obedience to Muhammad, the Qur'an, Allah and Islam. While nominal Muslims reject the idea, all Islamic scholars agree that it is the religious duty of every Muslim to use violence whenever possible to spread Islam until it has taken over the world.
You use the word nominal and all. I wonder if you have a list of the scholars. Don't you get it that it's the less than 1% bad seed that gets all the media attention.
We need to face some simple questions: Is not the attempt to force them into Islam the cause of the cruel enslavement, torture and slaughter of millions in southern Sudan? Is not Islam the driving force behind the murderous and destructive riots against Christians in Nigeria, Indonesia, Pakistan and elsewhere?
Those countries are led by bad governments and then some more bad groups that oppose the governments.
Is it not the enforcement of Islamic law that makes the Taliban deny all civil rights to those under its control in Afghanistan?
No. First of all there are 4 (?) School of Islamic Law. But the basis of Islam are only 2 things Quran and Hadiths (traditions related to Prophet Muhammad). According to my reading, a woman is free to get an education, get a job, choose her partner, and get a divorce; What the Talibans are doing is using their own biases and cultural beliefs (pre-Islamic) in the name of Islam.
And what is it but Islam that unites the otherwise divided Arab world in an implacable and unreasoning hatred against Israel? No Arab map in the world admits Israel's existence.
It's the imperialism of Britain that caused this divide. This is purely a national and racist issue specific to the region.
But is it prejudice to state the plain facts?
What plain facts, all of what you have said so far is full of ignorant remarks. Go back and do your homework!
but it is difficult to face the truth that Islam itself is a religion of violence and that those who practice it are not extremists and fanatics in the ordinary sense of those words, but sincere followers of Muhammad.
Yes it is difficult because you are present a Major Conflicting Statement. If whatever you mentioned about Muhammad is true then all of the 1.2 Billion Muslims should be looked at as terrorists. Sure, we can have another Holocaust - walk me to the Gas Chamber Please!
As a result, terrorism is perpetrated not only against Israel but now in this latest act against the United States to apply pressure to force Israel out of its rightful land and to spread Islam around the world.
Run that by me again. How does terrorism help spread Islam? As far as most of us can see, terrorism hurts the identity of muslims and Islam (your post is only one of many evidence).
We have arrived at a defining moment when truth could triumph if the world would recognize that terrorists are not "fanatics" but devout fundamentalist Muslims who are earnestly following their religion. This recognition could bring fresh sympathy for Muslims of all nationalities who are tragically trapped in that system. The expos� of the truth could embarrass Muslim nations into opening the Islamic Curtain and allowing freedom to enter their borders.
Wait a minute, all along you've been ignorantly attacking Islam and now you want to save the muslims and their Islam with it. Yes, muslims need to be freed but not from Islam or its restricts (which do not exist as Islam is a most flexible religion). They need to be saved from monarchies, dictatorships, military rulers, and even seemingly democratically elected leaders who through past and/or present support of the U.S. manage to take away their people's civil rights. You are so full of conflicts, the therapist must be upset about your absence.
It could be a new day of open evangelism for the world where not force but love and reason permit each person to determine the faith he would embrace from his heart.
Yeah, I hope the faith is not full of Ignorance as is your post!
[This message has been edited by Shama Khan (edited October 03, 2001).]
Joined: Nov 22, 2008
Why all this hatred towards each other? Why blame each other's country/culture/religion??? Didn't Mr. Bush say that this is a war against "Terrorism"??? I am deeply saddened by your point of views..... "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering"
Originally posted by US Terrorism: America's list of terrorism ..
Now post the documented source of each of those, as well as the military acts of all other countries. And post all peaceful actions by the US, including grand scale aid projects like the Marshall Plan. And post the peaceful actions and grand scale aid projects of all other countries.
[This message has been edited by Solveig Haugland (edited October 04, 2001).]