Peace

I don't put much stock in what Noam Chomsky has to say. I do not see him as someone who is for God.

I do not see him as someone who talks religion, either. But he is definitely someone who does not toe the official line. Is that what bothers you?

This may just very possibly be true. I do not see Obama as a leader that is seeking to create peace in the world. I do not hear words of peace but only of division coming from him. I believe it is his purpose to increase chaos in the world and turn opinion against the United States. He does not by any stretch of the imagination represent what previous leaders have represented. It is a jolly sham that he was awarded a Nobel peace prize. I have nothing good to say about the president that is currently leading the United States.

Wellll..............he is no better no worse than George Bush.

I don't know about the truth of that.

You must find out the truth. You owe it to yourself to know the truth.

What does it mean, "to sponsor terror". If it means did the U.S. and other governments armed groups and trained them to defend themselves, and these groups later turned into terror organizations.... is the U.S. responsible for what they used their training for once the initial battle was over. The terror organizations existing in the middle east are remnants of those that were armed and trained to defeat enemies that were coming against their nation. They have decided to turn those very arms and training against those that came to help them.
Or they are groups influenced and armed through muslim nations(Iran, Turkey, e.g.), and through Russia... for purposes of their own.
I think defining the battles is very difficult and the finger can not be pointed in one direction only.

I am surprised at your answer. It is rather unscrupulous. Isn't rather mercenary for a responsible nation like the US to train and arm people and then to abandon them regardless of the fact that, that very training and arms may be used against anyone?

Indeed, the U.S. has created death squads in Latin America, Iraq and Syria.

Can you give me a citation for this statement so I can research it further. Thanks.

I will try to. I did give the link of the story.

The U.S. employed the tactic when it decided to drop the a-bomb to compel the surrender of Japan. Since that time I have felt that the U.S. abandoned its own use of such tactics, seeing the wrongness of it. Let's face it... it was Bashar al Assad that decided it was ok to bomb his own cities, reducing them to rubble and killing innocents. The U.S. did not support that.

US is the only nation on earth which used an A-bomb against civilian targets and killed more than 300000 people. Which law or book of justice could rationalise such horrendous barbarity?

We are only told by captive media that Bashar Al Assad tried to bomb his own people. The fact, that he was to be toppled by the US and its allies, as a part of a grand plan to control the ME, but because all their overt and covert efforts failed, resulted in a stalemate. It was then a civil war was ignited by the western powers.

I would like to know what attacks they are labeling 'attacks committed by the CIA and FBI'.

I wish that audio link worked. In any case let us both search the web for such audio evidence.

I don't know what to say to these statements other than that they do make me ask;
When you are dealing with people with a terrorist mentality, when that is all the people understand, is there another way to fight?

To answer terrorism by terrorism would suggest a pitiable and shameless admission of intellectual and moral bankruptcy. And that is exactly what has happened with the US.

Thanks for sharing. The ways of war are never right or good.

You are welcome.

All that you shared however, does not address whether or not muslim leaders... political and otherwise... ever seek to spread a message for peace among the people...

Muslims do not have a pope who would annually deliver a message from the Vatican. But I do know that religious leaders do pray for peace and harmony on occasions of two Eids. This happens all over the world.

or are they guilty of the devices you describe above... using tactics to stir people in favor of war.

Only dictators who remain in power supported by imperial colonialists and recently mostly by the US are indifferent to peace. Elected and popular leaders are as much for peace as any other leader.

Though I have seen governments made to act in the ways of war...
their words have never stopped speaking of the desire and need for peace.

I do not hear words teaching me to think of others as enemies, but rather words of how we can turn to peace... how we can become people of peace, getting along with each other.
I do not hear words that encourage me to go out and seek my enemies. I hear words that encourage me to find ways to make friends.

Is that not hypocrisy, much as is practiced by the US? Lip service is hardly something the citizens of a country would like to hear.

Btw, you may want to say Assalaamualaikum instead of that shortened version.

asalaam,
Caringheart

The Saint wrote: The U.S. employed the tactic when it decided to drop the a-bomb to compel the surrender of Japan. Since that time I have felt that the U.S. abandoned its own use of such tactics, seeing the wrongness of it. Let's face it... it was Bashar al Assad that decided it was ok to bomb his own cities, reducing them to rubble and killing innocents. The U.S. did not support that. US is the only nation on earth which used an A-bomb against civilian targets and killed more than 300000 people. Which law or book of justice could rationalise such horrendous barbarity?

Agreed, no one could... that was the point I was making.

The Saint wrote: We are only told by captive media that Bashar Al Assad tried to bomb his own people. The fact, that he was to be toppled by the US and its allies, as a part of a grand plan to control the ME, but because all their overt and covert efforts failed, resulted in a stalemate. It was then a civil war was ignited by the western powers.

Greetings The Saint,

Are you kidding me?  It is not possible that you have not seen how Assad has reduced the cities in Syria to rubble... attacks on his own people and their livelihoods... to keep them in their place... to keep them from having a voice for change.

asalaam,
Caringheart

Experts on the Left and the Right Agree..."

I find a number of problems with your premise.

Why am I not surprised!

First of all, you state that experts on the Left and the Right agree, but you do not provide any conservative viewpoint at all.

Errr....I did not write the article. But if you like I will convey your thoughts to the writer.

Just because someone may have worked for a Bush or Reagan administration doesn't mean that individual was a conservative.

I am not saying.

Liberals have insinuated themselves in the fabric of the American society at every level, so quoting someone who worked for a Republican administration means nothing, let alone offers an expert opinion from someone on the Right.

Your opinion. As good or as bad as the one presented in the article.

Second, surely you can do better than to cite the leftist radical, Noam Chomsky, and to obtain all your research from the "Wiki" cites!

Sure, I can do better. I am just starting. And you also do not like Chomsky? How predictable!

BTW, who is "Herman", another left-wing radical? Also, you mentioned a book edited by Alexander L. George, but do not mention who the author is or what is the name of the book. What kind of research is that and how can anyone investigate the matter without such info? And you cite the Washington Post, another media shill for the Left!

LOL, this is not my research. But I shall definitely try to...........wait why don't you post your comments on the site where I got this from?

You make no distinction between war and terrorism in your condemnation of the U.S.

Both are extremely violent and while one uses superior military force the other employs stealth. The end results are often the same. Also what is terrorism according to you?

Do you really think any of the ME countries is innocent in regards to the terrorism being committed all around the world in the name of Islam?

Anyone can climb a tall building and shout to make claims that he/she is so and so. How much weight should be given to such 'heroes'. If anyone has a speck of sense, they would study Islam and then consider in that light the actions of people claiming to be Islamic they would know the true identity of these people. But, of course, it is easier to criticize and condemn!

Most ME countries are puppets of the west, selling a barrel of oil for a fancy Coke! Golden Monkeys really consumed by greed for power.

More important question is what is terrorism according to you? And what do you know about the alleged perpetrators. I would also like to know what are your views on issues like state torture and 'entertainments' like waterboarding?

Terrorism is the coward's way of waging war without declaring war.

Yeah, bombing children and women and old people from the safety of air is very brave, huh?

It is so much easier to kill innocent civilians than it is to engage an enemy head on.

I just said that!

You've heard the expression, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones."

I read it before I posted that piece.    

Take it to heart, Saint, because there is demonic activity going on in the form of murder, rape, kidnappings, and beheadings by Muslim terrorists all over the world, and trying to deflect atttention away from Islamic terror by fingering the U.S. just doesn't cut it.

If there is anyone in denial it is you kingkid. Because you are denying any knowledge of white-collar, state sponsored terrorism.

What do you call a country that glorifies wars and violence in the name of peace. One that's been at war every year in its history against one or more adversaries. It has the highest homicide rate of all western nations and a passion for owning guns, yet the two seem oddly unconnected. Violent films are some of its most popular, and similar video games crowd out the simpler, more innocent street play of generations earlier. Prescription and illicit drug use is out of control as well when tobacco, alcohol and other legal ones are included.

It get's worse. It's society is called a "rape culture" with data showing:

-- one-fourth of its adult women victims of forcible rape sometime in their lives, often by someone they know, including family members;

-- one-third of them are victims of sexual abuse by a husband or boyfriend;

-- 30% of people in the country say they know a woman who's been physically abused by her husband or boyfriend in the past year;

-- one in four of its women report being sexually molested in childhood, usually repeatedly over extended periods by a family member or other close relative;

-- its women overall experience extreme levels of violence; an astonishing 75% of them are victims of some form of it in their lifetimes;

--domestic violence is their leading cause of injury and second leading cause of death;

-- statistically, homes are their most dangerous place if men are in them as millions experience battering by husbands, male partners or fathers;

-- for most women with children, there's no escape for lack of means and because male assailants pursue them causing greater harm;

-- adding further injury, its society is often unsupportive; it affords women second class status, privileges and redress when they're abused so many suffer in silence fearing coming forward may cause more harm than help;

-- its children are abused as well; millions suffer serious neglect, physical mistreatment and/or sexual abuse; many get relief only through escape to dangerous streets; they end up alone, more vulnerable and at greater danger away than at home where there, too, families act more like strangers or predators forcing young kids to flee in the first place.

What country is it where things like these are normal and commonplace; where peace, tranquility and safety are illusions; where they're crowded out by foreign wars and violence at home in communities, neighborhoods, schools, throughout the media and in core families.

What kind of country glorifies mass killing, assaults and abuse; one that looks down on pacifist non-violence as sissy or unpatriotic, yet claims to be peace loving. It's not in the third world, under dictatorship or controlled by religious extremists. It's the "land of the free and home of the brave, America the Beautiful" where human rights, civil liberties, common dignity and personal safety are more illusion than fact.

Your quoting truthout.org is just more left-wing garbage. Here is an assessment of that organization by http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article2596.html: One of the Web sites that has morphed itself into a veritable Trojan horse arm of the extreme leftist media is Truthout.org � an anti-Bush cyber landfill that masquerades as a bastion of news credibility. Not only does Truthout.org post exclusively pro-Democrat, Bush-hating articles and editorials � they also boycott the views and opinions of both conservative Republicans and Libertarians.

One set of opinions against another? Instead of directly refuting facts and figures provided you are just trying to discredit a source by weak unsupported denials.

While claiming to represent America and purportedly seeking to �get the truth out,� Truthout.org conceals who they really are: A cornucopia of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-Palestine sedition. Its primary purpose: dumping extreme, Far Left rhetoric into its own little private black hole on the Internet � to anyone and everyone desperate enough to read its acerbic pontifications..."

Sounds like painful grouching. Making it all seem like politics. Weak! Very, very weak!

Third, I am not an apologist for war, but recognize that there is indeed a "time for peace and a time for war...". However, there is a vast difference between war and terrorism.

In war, unintentional consequences happen, such as the mistaken killing of civilians. But the killing of innocent victims in terrorism is the goal and not an unintentional mishap.

I agree. By definition, that is. But ideas and concepts are being redefined by the day. From regrets for civilian killings the term, collateral damage was shamelessly introduced and then came the drones. Robots that are not even expected to have feelings. They are blind killing machines programmed to just kill.

There is absolutely no justification for terrorism, regardless of how one may try to deflect, spin or lie in trying to divert attention away from Islamic atrocities.

Certainly not! But if there is no justification for one kind of terrorism then by the same book legal terrorism, war, too, has no justifcation. Which is fought for so called glorious goals, but ends-up killing civilians and non-combatants too, and recently, as in the case of war on Gaza, killing civilians was an obvious goal.

Just because soldiers wear uniforms and have the sanction of the state they do not have the license to kill with freedom and extreme prejudice. Also just because they have superior arms and legal and bodily protection they do not become heroes. But I am still not justifying terrorism of any kind. I think you should realise and all who think and act like you that terrorists do not wear uniforms. They are faceless, overt and covert entities, slaves to the causes they are fighting for. And many of them wear ties and adorn high seats of power.

And as for torture, if water-boarding a terrorist causes such fear that he spills his guts on his or other terrorist activities, then call it what you will, but do it and get the information needed to save innocent lives!

In the end, if we fail to define the real terrorists and reasons for discontent and rebellion, condone legal torture, introspect, and until we ensure justice for the oppressed both..........nay all types of terrorism and senseless violence shall continue unabated.

Caringheart wrote: The Saint wrote: The U.S. employed the tactic when it decided to drop the a-bomb to compel the surrender of Japan. Since that time I have felt that the U.S. abandoned its own use of such tactics, seeing the wrongness of it. Let's face it... it was Bashar al Assad that decided it was ok to bomb his own cities, reducing them to rubble and killing innocents. The U.S. did not support that. Why did Bashar Al Assad suddenly decide to bomb his own people? He had not done so before? It appeared to be so only after America started interfering in Syria's internal affairs? The western nations armed the rebels, as they usually do when they want to dislodge a government anywhere. O, I have seen reports which you have seen but question what I am told. You swallow the fare you are served because apparently it makes no difference to you what you read. US is the only nation on earth which used an A-bomb against civilian targets and killed more than 300000 people. Which law or book of justice could rationalise such horrendous barbarity? Agreed, no one could... that was the point I was making. The Saint wrote: We are only told by captive media that Bashar Al Assad tried to bomb his own people. The fact, that he was to be toppled by the US and its allies, as a part of a grand plan to control the ME, but because all their overt and covert efforts failed, resulted in a stalemate. It was then a civil war was ignited by the western powers. Greetings The Saint,Are you kidding me?� It is not possible that you have not seen how Assad has reduced the cities in Syria to rubble... attacks on his own people and their livelihoods... to keep them in their place... to keep them from having a voice for change.asalaam,Caringheart Assad obviously fought and attacked rebels hired and funded by the evil western axis, to topple his government. the west backed down when threatened by Russia because was a war the west did not wish to fight.