Wrongly Accused?

[Sasquatch]

"Ones person terrorist, is another's freedom fighter. Depending on where you stand and support, faction A is a freedom fighter that fights hard for their beliefs, but faction B is a terrorist to your ideals. Same the other way around. The word terrorist is so wrong in many ways its not funny."

I see your point, but I'm sorry, somebody who straps explosives to women and children is a terrorist. Did you realize that there was a child with Downs Syndrome that was made into a suicide bomber on the day of the Iraqi Elections? (I don't know if that was reported back through some of the biased media sources.) You can't tell me that's the action of a "freedom fighter". In a way, I do see your point, but there's a big difference between somebody who is fighting against somebody else because they're standing up for their ideals, and somebody who commits terrorist acts, for whatever reason. It could be argued that most North Vietnamese soldiers could be considered "freedom fighters" because they saw the U.S. as somebody encroaching on their territory and forcing their ideals on them, and they stood up for them. But somebody who makes themself, or another person, especially a person who doesn't have the power or freedom to refuse, into a walking bomb is not a "freedom fighter", they're a terrorist.

"They also bulldozed the homes of Palestinians who were living where Israel wanted to build new settlements."

When was the last time this happened?

"Well then, I guess plenty of US Christian churches should be bulldozed for supporting the Bush administration's extremist policies, and for supporting terrorist groups like the CIA."

Though I see your (poorly made) point, and I realize you're being sarcastic, I'd still have to argue. For one thing, you would have to consider the Bush adminstration's policies to be "extremist", and for another, you would have to consider the CIA to be a "terrorist group", and both ideas are ridiculous. However, since I see the point you're trying to make, I will say this. Churches and religious organizations have tax-exempt status, meaning, obviously, they aren't taxed. People who work for the church don't have to pay income tax, people who donate to the church can claim tithes and such as exemptions on their taxes, no property tax is paid for church-owned land, etc. And if churches support the policies of one political party or another, they can lose that tax-exempt status. So churches can support the soldiers, but they can't say "Bush is doing a good thing". They could say that we need to pray for our president, but they can't say that we need to pray for one candidate's victory over another candidate in an election.

[Big D]

For one thing, you would have to consider the Bush adminstration's policies to be "extremist", and for another, you would have to consider the CIA to be a "terrorist group", and both ideas are ridiculous.

The Bush adminstration's policies have included such things as:

*Attacking other countries for violating human rights, and for violating international law, whilst simultaneously committing both of those breaches themselves

*Attempting to defame, undermine or outright destroy the careers of foreign powers which disagree with their policies

*Ignoring most of the mis-deeds of non-Arab, non-Muslim countries and instead focussing military attention on those particular groups (not a universal trend, but a noticeable one)

I could go on, but the list is quite tiresome.

As for the CIA, they've been assisting and committing terrorist crimes around the world for decades, now, and the US government has always refused to accept any responsibility even when it admits the nature of the acts being committed.
See, for instance:

*Afghanistan, 1980s

*Nicaragua, 1980s

*more or less everywhere, today - the CIA has been implicated in, and occasionally admitted, involvement in the torture and abduction of "suspected terrorists" around the world.

And if churches support the policies of one political party or another, they can lose that tax-exempt status. So churches can support the soldiers, but they can't say "Bush is doing a good thing". They could say that we need to pray for our president, but they can't say that we need to pray for one candidate's victory over another candidate in an election.

During the latest presidential elections, some senior US Catholic priests told their underlings to stop performing Mass for Senator Kerry's supporters. The Church quite openly sided with President Bush's campaign for re-election, on the basis of his strong - some might say, extreme - religious views.

[Lionx]

Hey they could be called martyrs(i suck at spelling rofl). The point is that they are still fighting for their ideals no matter how they achieve it. If you played the game Starcraft, you know that the rebel faction group sacrificed(voluntarily) alot of people to rise in power to defeat the Confederate fleets. They are still freedom fighters for their agenda. Its the same as anyone who wants to fight for their own agendas. No matter what method they use they are still achiving the same means. You might not like it(i sure dont either) but i still think that yes, its their way of becomming a freedom fighter and i dont think people need to fit other people's view of how one should be to really become one. A terrorist is just someone fighting for their own views but are opposing yours IMO. Thats the only difference, we just use that word terrorist to demonize the other side and promote our own.

My opinion is that, Bush and the CIA being terrorist is not uncompletely illogical. It can be very much true, to others you are just bombing their nation and the CIA they have many "persausive" ways of interrogating you, whether through interrogation through an extended time or by beating you up with a phone book strapped to you(which will hide the bruises and the stuff...). However about the praying and support, it might depend on where you live but my Christian HS that i went to openly says to support Bush. Even the church that they run, they will support bush only because he is conservative and republican...which i think that supporting him just because of that, as the LAMEST things anyone can say...but yet some students actually support them!...so blehhhhh... You should see all the anti-Kerry things the students do to "fit-in" and how much crap i had to go through for supporting Kerry..some people lost friends..; ;(granted not everyone was mean but some of the really "devout" believers were like that -_-)

EDIT: Now if the "terrorist" groups had missles and WMD why do they need suicide bombers then? Hmmm....

[Sasquatch]

Would I be wrong to assume you have the slightest bit of evidence to back up the claims of things like Bush violating human rights and international law, the CIA torturing terrorists, and others of the like? (By the way, I'm sure your definition of "torture" and the definition set down by the Geneva Code differ greatly.) Of course, I'm not expecting any unbiased references, if any at all, but...hey, surprise me.

And the CIA usually doesn't perform their own interrogations in which, ahem, "torture" may be necessary. That's why we send 'em to places like Egypt, where their laws permit such methods of extracting information.

And the Catholic Church--or any churches, rather--may have spoken out against stances that Kerry took (i.e. pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, Socialism, etc.), but I would doubt that they specifically said "don't let Democrats in". If they have, I stand corrected, but I'd like to see evidence of such.

Some people support a certain political party--whether it be Democrats or Republican or another--simply because they're that specific political party. I don't agree with that, whichever way it may go. But some support specific parties because they greatly disagree with the other party...for example, some may only vote Democrat because they believe the Republicans are against, say, abortion, while some may only vote Republican because they believe the Democrats are against, we'll say, gun rights. It may or may not be that way, but according to those people, the issues they believe in are strong enough to not change their mind/vote until the opposite party changes their stance on such issues.

But enough about how eeeeeevil the Republicans are. Back to the topic.

Again, there is quite a difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter". A person who is fighting against us is not referred to as a "terrorist" unless they use terrorism to do so. Are you saying that 11 September was the act of "freedom fighters"? Whereas "freedom fighters", who I would have at least some respect for, try to seperate themselves from the civilian population, to minimize civilian casualties on both sides, terrorists try to blend in with the civilian population for protection, and target the opposing civilian population. There's more of a difference than just the weapons used.

lionx: If the Japanese had bombs and torpedos (and a combination of the two) in WWII, why did they need Kamikaze attacks? And no, terrorists didn't have WMDs, not at that point. (EDIT: By the way. Yes, you spelled "martyrs" right .)

[Big D]

Would I be wrong to assume you have the slightest bit of evidence to back up the claims of things like Bush violating human rights and international law, the CIA torturing terrorists, and others of the like? (By the way, I'm sure your definition of "torture" and the definition set down by the Geneva Code differ greatly.) Of course, I'm not expecting any unbiased references, if any at all, but...hey, surprise me.

Just so you know, I'm studying international law (fourth year at university), and I'm getting a first-rate education from leading US, Canadian, UK and other academics. I know the international standards.
Systematic abuses of detainees in camps in Iraq are a leading example; in spite of frequent claims that torture and abuse were ordered by superior officers, it's only ever the grunts who get held accountable. The continued detention of suspects at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba is the most powerful example, and blatantly illegal by the standards of any other nation, as well as international law. No other civilised state ever considers it's OK to capture people in their own country, then lock them up indefinitely without access to legal advice, without charge, without trial, without a guarantee of even the most basic of human rights. If anyone did that to an American captive, they'd be bombed to hell for it.
Excuses like "they're unlawful combatants!11!" simply don't work either. I could go into all the international law details, but that's boring.

And the CIA usually doesn't perform their own interrogations in which, ahem, "torture" may be necessary. That's why we send 'em to places like Egypt, where their laws permit such methods of extracting information.

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/h_cat39.htm
This is a link to the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It's the final word as far as torture is concerned. If you torture someone yourself, or send them to a place where you know they'll be tortured, you're just as guilty. Here is a link to the judgment from the Paramilitary Activities case. Nicaragua took the USA to court, after the CIA had spent a long time assisting anti-government rebels to commit terrorist crimes, including:
the abduction, rape and murder of civilians; the bombing of civilian building; the mining of civilian ships in port.
The US's response was interesting:

"Noo, but they're communists! We're allowed to do whatever we want so long as it kills communists! It's self-defence, because communists are evil and un-American!"

"What? We're not going to take part in any 'trial'! America is beyond reproach!"

"Hey, the USA wasn't a part of that trial! That means it was a travesty of justice and we refuse to acknowledge its findings!"

It was quite disgusting to read that such things had been said by a country that's always been such a steadfast supporter of freedom and justice for all.

And the Catholic Church--or any churches, rather--may have spoken out against stances that Kerry took (i.e. pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, Socialism, etc.), but I would doubt that they specifically said "don't let Democrats in".

This was widely reported in the international press; it wasn't that the churches prevented anyone entering, but some high-ranking church members said that Kerry's supporters shouldn't receive services. This isn't a particularly big deal, so far as I'm concerned.

Again, there is quite a difference between a terrorist and a "freedom fighter". A person who is fighting against us is not referred to as a "terrorist" unless they use terrorism to do so. Are you saying that 11 September was the act of "freedom fighters"? Whereas "freedom fighters", who I would have at least some respect for, try to seperate themselves from the civilian population, to minimize civilian casualties on both sides, terrorists try to blend in with the civilian population for protection, and target the opposing civilian population. There's more of a difference than just the weapons used.

Were the IRA terrorists, or freedom fighters? They wanted their land to be free of British rule. They bombed innocents as part of their campaign. They and their supporters say they're freedom fighters; everyone else says they're terrorists.

Nelson Mandela and the ANC were called "terrorists" by South Africa's apartheid-era government. I doubt any would do so today.

No, the line between 'freedom fighter' and 'terrorist' is very blurred. It's almost completely a subjective matter, dependent upon one's own perspective, morals and political motives.

A fictional character once said that "if you win, you're a general. If you lose, you're a terrorist". This is precisely why weaker, corrupt nations can get labelled "terrorist states" while superpowers can get away with prettymuch anything.

lionx: If the Japanese had bombs and torpedos (and a combination of the two) in WWII, why did they need Kamikaze attacks? And no, terrorists didn't have WMDs, not at that point.

Kamikaze attacks let pilots use their aircraft as a final weapon, when they were damaged beyond use or out of ammunition. Japan's culture at that time was quite spiritual; there was a strong desire among soldiers to die honourably in combat. I don't know all the details, but it wasn't simply a case of "omg i r evil! I kill u all!"
Personally, I find the Kamikaze concept repulsive, but that's just my perspective.

[Sasquatch]

Congratulations on your International Law education. I'm studying Engineering. That must mean that anybody who disagrees with me on a topic concerning engineering--combat, civil, mechanical, or otherwise--is wrong. Because I know engineering.

The "abuses" (that was humiliation, not torture) of prisoners in Iraq may be a good example. No "grunt" (they're "lower enlisted", by the way, not "grunts") was under direct supervision from the Commanding Officer. There was no Officer that said, "Private, I order you to strip these prisoners naked and pose for pictures with them!" The NCOs (those are NonCommissioned Officers... Enlisted.) were in control of the situation, and the NCOs are being held responsible. I by no means condone such behavior, but, A) it's nothing compared to the real torture Saddam put people through; and B) those responsible are being, have been, or will be dealt with accordingly.

In all honesty, personally, I think the hooded "electrocution" thing looked pretty funny. C'mon, you can't say that wouldn't be funny. ... Or I guess you can. Maybe I'm just a bastard like that.

As for the "suspects" in Gitmo, they are not being held as enemy combatants, they are being held as terrorists, and are thus exempt from Geneva Code and Due Process laws concerning enemy Prisoners of War. Some have been released, proving that it is an issue, but there should be no "time limit" or Statute of Limitations on terrorism. As for "the most basic of human rights", unless you're talking about the "rights", or lack thereof, concerning law and punishment, they are being cared for with normal, basic human rights. It's far from a concentration camp. It's not even a POW camp.

Ah. I apologize, I didn't know that the United States must answer to Nicaragua. The U.S. supported the Contras, which fought against the government of Nicaragua. The government of Nicarague hated the Contras, and hated the United States, even moreso when the United States supported the Contras. This is equivalent to an Aryan claiming that he was beat up by black police officers. A reliable source? Did the Contras use brutal tactics, and did the U.S. support the Contras, yes. Were they targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civilians? Or were they targeting logistics? The Nicaraguan government used tactics that would have made the Contras look like Boy Scouts.

I wasn't in the country at the time of the U.S. Presidential Elections, or most of the campaigns, but I did try to keep up reasonable well with the news, and I never heard of any church refusing to admit, or attempting to refuse to admit, supporters of any specific candidate. I could understand doing so with supporters of certain political stances and views--don't agree with it, of course, but understand it--but never heard of either. Of course, I didn't have consistent or scheduled periodical opportunities to check the news, so I may have missed it, if it did indeed happen.

I don't know much about the IRA or the ANC beyond their existence, so it's not my place to comment on them. However, if the IRA specifically targeted civilians for the sake of targeting civilians, and attempted to disguise themselves as civilians while carrying out their attacks on other civilians, then yes, they are a terrorist organization. I understand the quote you posted, and I know of another quote along the lines of "history is written by the victors"--both would go along the same lines. However, there is still quite a difference between "freedom fighter" and "terrorist".

To be fair, the United States's use of nuclear weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August of 1945 was somewhat of a terrorist act. It was the targeting of civilians in order to influence the government and society. Whether or not it was necessary is another topic entirely, and I won't comment more on it, but I was just pointing out that "terrorism" covers a lot of ground.

Few Kamikaze attacks were because the aircraft was out of munitions. If an aircraft was on its way down, I wouldn't doubt a bit that the pilot would try to aim it towards a target, but that wouldn't be a Kamikaze. There were specific missions designed to be Kamikaze missions, and specific weaponry designed to be used as a Kamikaze attack. If a Japanese pilot returned alive from a Kamikaze mission, he was thought of as a disgrace. (There's a resident Japan scholar around here somewhere, I'm sure they would have more light to shed on the topic.) I respect the Kamikaze concept, but I feel, as would most soldiers, that I would better serve my country in life than in death. In most cases, anyway...if I was piloting a plane that was going down, you bet I'd steer it towards a military target, but I doubt I would intentionally fly a well-equipped, mission-capable vehicle into a suicide run. And I sure as hell wouldn't try to take it into the middle of a shopping mall or crowded street. There is a big difference between a Kamikaze pilot and a suicide bomber.

[Martyr]

Christianity saves you from hell.

The rest of them are tremendous wastes of time and effort. Disgusting. It's like crack with all the mind control and the life devouring stuff. And all for naught because the bastards end up in Hell anyway!

Congratulations! This is your most ignorant statement yet!

All I can say, Martyr, is that you have no grasp of the concept of religion at all.

I've taken 3 religion courses in college, bro. I know the ins and outs of the major ones and plenty of the minor ones.

My statement has nothing to do with ignorance. You're simply afraid - terrified - to acknowledge that you can't prove me wrong.

Christianity teaches that it is the only religion that is true and that can save a soul from the so-called flames of hell. Quite unfortunately, this means that my statement is invariably true UNLESS Christianity turns out to be false.

Seeing as it's impossible for me to be wrong, not only because I'm pompous, but because I have secret, perhaps you might call is celestial or holy knowledge that I am very very right, you can't argue with me. You can disagree, and with a whole heart, but calling me ignorant is utterly absurd.

And although i hope for everybody, pray for who I can, and do what I can to save everyone I can, it still does not diminish the fact that intense practice of other religions must be a complete waste of time. (Unless it brings some inner peace, but Christianity will do all that for you anyway.)

And I hope that this answers any other questions about my post.
It's just a plug for my religion, harshly stated. I'm tired of being nice to people, telling them that what they do is okay even though it isn't. Hard facts are hard facts. This is a cruel world, and even our merciful God can't stop the universe for everybody. Some people burn. You may as well know the route to safety. If you don't like it, talk to somebody else, but I'll question their reliability if they disagree with me.

Edit: I haven't read much about the topic at hand. I'm just going to be short and hope that I'm not repeating anybody when I make the simple statement: Religions are in competition with each other. If it's western, like mine, like muslim, then it's easy to believe that the devil is also at the back of the others.
From my Chrsitian point of view, there will always be conflict here because the battle between Christianity and every other deceit is the same as the battle between sinfulness and righteousness. It's all part of the war that Satan has waged.
He wants to destroy as many of us as he can! Of course there's conflict! Of course there's hatred!

[Big D]

The "abuses" (that was humiliation, not torture) of prisoners in Iraq may be a good example.

Many prisoners have died during interrogation. The US forces admit to using suffocation and chest compressions as interrogation techniques. Chest compression = doing CPR on a person whose heart is working. That's a basic "no" they teach you in simple first aid. When you do that to someone and they die, it's murder so long as you know it could kill. The infliction of that kind of suffering is torture.

No "grunt" (they're "lower enlisted", by the way, not "grunts") was under direct supervision from the Commanding Officer. There was no Officer that said, "Private, I order you to strip these prisoners naked and pose for pictures with them!"

I used "grunt" to emphasise the deliberately callous way in which these lower-ranks are being used by their superiors as scapegoats. Torture techniques like the ones I described above have been given approval from the highest levels, but it's always the enlisted men and women who pay the price.

I by no means condone such behavior, but, A) it's nothing compared to the real torture Saddam put people through; and B) those responsible are being, have been, or will be dealt with accordingly.

Those who're ultimately responsible are getting away with continuing to order the same abuses. Hussein had people tortured and killed; the US army is torturing and killing. Except for scale, there's little difference. You might as well try to say that Hussein wasn't that bad because his crimes were less serious than what the Nazis did.

As for the "suspects" in Gitmo, they are not being held as enemy combatants, they are being held as terrorists, and are thus exempt from Geneva Code and Due Process laws concerning enemy Prisoners of War.

That's a nonsense. The rules against torture, and the rules dictating basic human rights, apply to all human beings without reservation. They are within the US's jurisdiction (even though Camp X-Ray is on rented land), so the US is guilty of their illegal detention. The cry that "they're not POWs!" doesn't excuse any abuses at all. The Geneva Convention is merely the statute that applies to POWs. There's all the other stuff - ICCPR, etc - that covers how absolutely anyone should be treated.

Some have been released, proving that it is an issue

Yeah, the ones from US-allied countries (Australia, the UK) are being released as a result of immense pressure from diplomats and from the US's own courts. Virtually all of the prisoners freed have been immediately released by their own countries, because there's no evidence at all to support any terrorism charges.

but there should be no "time limit" or Statute of Limitations on terrorism.

Why not? These people aren't being held as terrorists, they're "suspected terrorists" or "enemy combatants". They've not been charged with anything. If the US can arbitrarily detain absolutely anyone for indefinite periods of time without giving a reason, then frankly everyone in the world - US citizen or otherwise - is potentially in the poo. Ask yourself this... would you still think you live in a free, fair, peace-loving society if your family was abducted and whisked away to goodness-knows-where, beyond any contact, for an indefinite period and into unknown conditions, simply because someone thought they might know something about a potential terrorist threat?

As for "the most basic of human rights", unless you're talking about the "rights", or lack thereof, concerning law and punishment, they are being cared for with normal, basic human rights. It's far from a concentration camp. It's not even a POW camp.

How do we know what the standards are? There's been virtually no independent inspection of those facilities. Besides, nothing excuses the large-scale, arbitrary detention of people captured at home or abroad.

Ah. I apologize, I didn't know that the United States must answer to Nicaragua. The U.S. supported the Contras, which fought against the government of Nicaragua. The government of Nicarague hated the Contras, and hated the United States, even moreso when the United States supported the Contras. This is equivalent to an Aryan claiming that he was beat up by black police officers. A reliable source? Did the Contras use brutal tactics, and did the U.S. support the Contras, yes. Were they targeting civilians for the sake of targeting civilians? Or were they targeting logistics? The Nicaraguan government used tactics that would have made the Contras look like Boy Scouts.

Yes, it's all very well documented. The US legislature passed enactments to provide monetary, strategic and other support to the Contra rebels. Civilian buildings and vessels were targetted by Contra, both of their own volition and under the guidance of their CIA supporters. The aim was to undermine the communist government; destroying vital infrastructure like public buildings and harbours achieves that aim. It also kills plenty of innocents who get in the way. The US has never denied the nature or scope of its paramilitary activities in Central America. It just says that they're OK, because the defeat of Communism was a goal worthy of any sacrifice.

There is a big difference between a Kamikaze pilot and a suicide bomber.

I was never implying any similarity.[q=Sasquatch]Congratulations on your International Law education. I'm studying Engineering. That must mean that anybody who disagrees with me on a topic concerning engineering--combat, civil, mechanical, or otherwise--is wrong. Because I know engineering.[/q] I was responding to your unwarranted and quite provocative statement:

(By the way, I'm sure your definition of "torture" and the definition set down by the Geneva Code differ greatly.) Of course, I'm not expecting any unbiased references, if any at all, but...hey, surprise me.

How did you expect me to respond to that? I explained why I'm making the kind of statements I'm making. Explained where and how I acquired the knowledge I'm purporting to use here.

I've had the misfortune of studying a whole slew of human rights abuses, including torture, genocide and mass rape, in a whole lot of different conflicts. Recent abuses by US personnel don't even come close to what others have done, and I'd never suggest they were worse. The problem I have is with the US's repeated attempts to somehow justify or explain away its behaviour, taking the 'moral high ground' while subverting the very rules it (admirably) seeks to promulgate.

You've made one inflammatory statement after another, accusing me of bias and outright lies. I'm trying to be reasoned here, and make a point - albeit a disturbing one that others mightn't like to hear.

[Cloud No.9]

basic human rights and what classifies as torture are defiently defined in the un human rights charter. the problem is, america recently changed it's own definition of torture. it states that only something which results in lasting physical damage is counted as torture. un, geneva and the eu all define torture as any physical harm. us law has now stepped out of line with the un charter which gives anyone basic human rights. america has sanctioned torture at government level, even producing a lovely manual on how to do it right and everything, what lovely chaps. physically harming someone is now like building ikea furniture. god love em.

and before anyone says guantanamo bay is okay because they were all found in battle and so are obviously guilty. mozzam begg had his door kicked in when he was living in pakistan, taken to bagrahm tortured, and then to quantanamo and tortured and held for 3 years, then released.

america has supported many terrorist attacks, genocides and all over nastiness. halabja was performed with support from america. nelson mandella was a terrorist and was involved with the murder of innocent men, women and children. won the nobel peace prize for that......

but we are getting a little off topic, which is usual for this type of discussion which involves saying all muslims are evil and the mosques should be bulldozed. someone else did that with synagogues somewhere..... can't remember exactly where that was......

but we are all getting a little off topic. the discussion was whether religion was to blame for evil in the world. of course it is. because at the end of the day people can't accept that people do these things for a specific reason and aren't crazy or religious fanatics. these aren't random occurances. the holocaust even had a purpose. not a very good one at all but it was still there. and like nelson mandella, himmler is still admired by some people for the murdering of innocents. religion has nothing to do with this it's all dependant on which side of the fence you sit.

[Sasquatch]

Don't have much time, but Big D, when did I accuse you of "outright lies"? I may suspect that you had been misinformed, but I wouldn't expect you to blatantly and knowingly provide false information. If I see something you post that I believe to be untrue, I simply assume that it's ignorance, not dishonesty, that led to that statement. And I would expect the same assumptions from any opposition to myself.

Cloud No. 9 -- If you're referring to the destruction of synagogues by Nazi Germany, keep in mind, those synagogues weren't storing automatic weapons, chemical gear, and RPGs. Those synagogues weren't preaching that their followers should strap explosives to themselves and detonate them in a crowded civilian area, or plant roadside bombs without knowing or caring who they end up detonating next to. Big difference. When was the last time you saw a synagogue with headless bodies outside of it, or realized that at least half of the roadside bombs a specific unit finds are within sight of a synagogue tower? Of course, not all mosques preach these things, but many, many.

Big D -- How high did the "direct orders" to torture the prisoners come from? And "except for scale, there's little difference"? If you really believe that, I'm glad you can't cast a vote in American elections. If anything else, "the end justifies the means" would work well in this situation as well.

[Big D]

nelson mandella was a terrorist and was involved with the murder of innocent men, women and children. won the nobel peace prize for that......

Nelson Mandela was a stricly pacifist campaigner; he was imprisoned for over two decades because he passionately opposed apartheid in all its horror. He wasn't a terrorist.[q=Sasquatch]Cloud No. 9 -- If you're referring to the destruction of synagogues by Nazi Germany, keep in mind, those synagogues weren't storing automatic weapons, chemical gear, and RPGs. Those synagogues weren't preaching that their followers should strap explosives to themselves and detonate them in a crowded civilian area, or plant roadside bombs without knowing or caring who they end up detonating next to. Big difference. When was the last time you saw a synagogue with headless bodies outside of it, or realized that at least half of the roadside bombs a specific unit finds are within sight of a synagogue tower? Of course, not all mosques preach these things, but many, many.[/q]The overwhelming majority of mosques don't preach extremism, terrorism or murder. Earlier, you said the following:

Islam has been given a bad name many times in the past, and has done nothing to redeem itself. You don't see clerics speaking out against what their "followers" have done, you see them condoning it. You don't see protests by other Muslims against terrorist acts, you see celebrations. When will Islam follow Islam again?

In fact, the majority of Muslims and their clerics are as opposed to extremist acts as anyone else. The TV news sources don't bother airing their views, though, because it's boring and it doesn't get people mad. Far better to show the vociferous minority. Remember - Pakistan and Indonesia are major Muslim population centres; both (Pakistan in particular) are notable allies of the 'war on terror'.
If the media and governments emphasises all the Muslim opposition to terrorism, then it'd be harder to dehumanise that religion and its followers. Harder to whip up the kind of patriotic fervour that leads people to wholeheartedly support discrimination, segregation and outright violence against a minority. I know for a fact that the majority of liberal Muslims have absolutely no time for Al Qaeda and other extremist groups. I'm lucky enough to have friends from nearly every major major religion, all of whom get along just fine.
There are some powers in this world who want us all to believe that the Islamic religion, and all its followers, are rabid warmongerers who want to kill us all for no reason at all. It suits the aims of these powers if we just nod and agree.

Remember, just as there are Muslims who support violence against non-Muslims, there are also plenty of US Christians wearing "Nuke Iraq" t-shirts; similarly, there more than a few Israelis who think that the utter annihilation of the Palestinian people would be a good thing.
No one side is completely innocent in this matter. There has been an intense campaign by some authorities to 'demonise' the Islamic faith, to portray it as an evil, malignant force that must be wiped out in order for the rest of us to survive. It's chillingly similar, though not yet as intense, as the way the Nazi party empowered and united the weakening German people by fomenting hatred against Jews, who were accused of everything from terrorism to cultural degeneracy.

Big D -- How high did the "direct orders" to torture the prisoners come from?

Donald Rumsfeld and President Bush personally approved some of the interrogation techniques that have been called into question.

And "except for scale, there's little difference"? If you really believe that, I'm glad you can't cast a vote in American elections.

Hussein - tortured and executed his enemies, or people he believed were his enemies. US forces - torturing and killing their enemies, or suspected enemies as is often the case. Take it down to the simplest level, and you get the same kind of acts being done against the same kind of people. Torture was one of the least of Hussein's crimes, but a serious one nonetheless.

If anything else, "the end justifies the means" would work well in this situation as well.

So many abhorrences have been justified throughout history with those words. If "the ends justify the means", then you could say that terrorism is justified because it draws attention to major issues in the Middle East. An end justifying a mean.
The entire point of torture being prohibited by jus cogens - a peremptory norm of international law, from which no derogation whatsoever is permissible - is because it has been deemed intolerable in today's world, an unforgivable backward step that goes against everything our societies have become. Torture is right up there with slavery and piracy for that reason.

[Sasquatch]

I ask again, when did I make an accusation of any opponent using "outright lies"? I'd like to be pointed back to that comment I made, because, amazingly, I don't seem to remember making it.

The "overwhelming majority"? Maybe in places outside the Middle East, maybe. Inside the Middle East, however, the "overwhelming majority" of Muslims, and Muslim clergy, DO support , as you put it, "extremism, terrorism, or murder". Maybe in the Western World, Muslims are civilized, normal people, but a large portion of Middle Eastern Muslims in fact are extremists.

If the media emphasized Muslim opposition to terrorism, they would never have any stories. The two gatherings of Muslims opposed to their extremist Middle Eastern counterparts were widely publicized. More weren't publicized because there were no more. Maybe a few, but not big enough and not numerous enough to get attention. It's not because the media is trying to make us all hate Muslims, it's because the media has NOTHING to report that would make more people like Muslims. Except, of course, for those two Muslim anti-terror protests, which were well publicized.

How many Christians have you seen wearing "nuke Iraq" shirts? I'm sure some Christians believe that, but most likely only a few. And I wouldn't blame Israelis for wanting all Palestinians to be killed, because that's the only way the Palestinians will stop slaughtering the Israeli civilian population. I personally have no qualm with the Iraqi people, only the insurgents who try to kill and maim Coalition forces and civilians. Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't against Iraq, it was against Saddam Hussein and his buddies, and the other extremists and militants. We're there to help the Iraqi people, and we're doing a damn good job at it, whether you think we're "killing and torturing" or not.

There is no attempt by anybody to "demonize" the Muslim faith. Some Muslims do enough to demonize Islam, they don't need any help. And most other Muslims are just sitting back and letting it happen--they might disagree with it, sure, but they're not doing anything about it, not even forming a protest.

What orders did President Bush and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld hand down that dictated people be tortured?

[StarChild]

Christianity saves you from hell.

The rest of them are tremendous wastes of time and effort. Disgusting. It's like crack with all the mind control and the life devouring stuff. And all for naught because the bastards end up in Hell anyway!

Yes, I hate many other religions.

I mean, look at all the crap that hindu monks have to go through! Their entire message is: Come! Conquer us!

Bleah!

My feeling isn't hatred, actually. It's disgust.

aren't we the brightest crayon in the box. and who says Christianity saves you from hell? So let me guess, you thought the crusades were a good thing?

I thought Christianity taught us mercy, and to tolerate others and to have compassion...let me guess, you only skimmed the bible? or you aren't listening to your sermons on sunday.

[StarChild]

Christianity teaches that it is the only religion that is true and that can save a soul from the so-called flames of hell. Quite unfortunately, this means that my statement is invariably true UNLESS Christianity turns out to be false.

Seeing as it's impossible for me to be wrong, not only because I'm pompous, but because I have secret, perhaps you might call is celestial or holy knowledge that I am very very right, you can't argue with me. You can disagree, and with a whole heart, but calling me ignorant is utterly absurd.

and what if it is false? I'm not saying it isn't, but what if it was? then you've just made the biggest ass out of yourself. Honestly. I think you're absured, I went to a catholic high school, and I go to a lutheran university I've taken four religion classes, and I know probably a lot more then you about christianity and other religions. So don't act like you're all pious.

Keep an open mind, and stop being ignorant, and stop thinking that you're the only one here who THINKS they are right, because in honestly, what you have said is your opinion, and now I have stated mine, and unless God himself came down and told you himself, then you have no right to be saying the stuff that you have.

[Martyr]

StarChild: And you've only skimmed this thread. I tried to defend myself, but you people just want to attack, don't you?

I don't want to argue about whether or not the Crusades were a universally good thing, it certainly is the cause of a lot of bad press. But, generally, I'll say that Christianity doesn't save you from Hell so much as Jesus does. But this thread seemed to cover religions as a whole and since Jesus isn't really a big player on the scene of, say, Hinduism, I decided to stick with blunt Christianity.

Now. Yes, Christianity teaches mercy. We are supposed to love everybody.
But I've never heard of it teaching tolerance. The premise of the religion is that sin can only be forgiven, but never tolerated. If sinful humans could be tolerated in heaven, then the whole crucifixion thing wouldn't be necessary.
So, we forgive those who wrong us, and we're lucky to have the ability to do so, but we believe that wrongs must be paid for. Restitution is necessary on Earth, since nobody is perfect.

But that's irrelevant to the overall point. I don't know what you want me to say, lest I repeat myself.