Iupdate, when I say I am trying to see where you are coming from, yes, I am simply trying to understand what you are saying. I don't understand what you mean when you say I am separating and bisecting what you are saying, maybe you can further clarify this. I am not trying to label you or anything like that. I am very sorry if I have come across like that. All I am trying to do is to give you my views based on the limited knowledge and experience that I have.

Yes, I am open minded and I try to bend over backwards to undertstand what anyone whom I am dealing with says. Thus my motto: Seek first to understand......

I fully agree with what you say regarding prophecy, love, prayer and a positive mental attitude, etc, but if you consider what Christ said regarding the 7 churches in the book of Revelation, there certainly are not a large percentage of persons in the world with these moral values to counteract what was prophesied. Only 2 out of the 7 churches Christ was pleased with!

I have been trying my best to answer some of your points and I certainly don't understand why you seem to get angry with what I said or the manner in which I said it. There really seems to be some kind of clash or conflict that has arisen in our dialogue and I really don't understand how or why that has happened.

I can assure you that there is complete absence of malice on my part.

Great Demos; I am aware that you are responding as respectable as possible and I do not consider that you are being in any which way malicious. If I seem to be malicious, I apologize; this is never my intention. As I have said before I appreciate that you have taken the approach to show me otherwise, I consider this to be a diplomatic approach. The diplomatic way to discuss this subject is the way and I hope I do not weary you as did the Leagues of Nations or the US administration.

I know how it can be at time those of us who have children, nephews and nieces for example those of us who do knows how difficult it can be at time using the method of words to get result rather than resulting to the rod of correction. Expressing my point diplomatically without attempting to dominate your view is never my intention.

I see that you stand on the side of the US on this war and as I have said already I am not attempting to move you at all. Like you, there are some who support the side of the insurgents, or Bin Laden, I don’t’ see how this side thing helps. I stand CENTER to draw the two sides to the middle-point (consensus through diplomacy rather than a pointless drawn out war of many dead, mutilated and suffering Americans, Iraqis, Arabs etc, as was the case in Vietnam, Lebanon, Semolina, the Korean war, etc).

I am not attempting to move you where you stand and I am sure you are also not attempting to move me either, but I did post the question that you did not answer, perhaps you missed it by oversight, at times I am guilty of this also. So, once again I draw your attention to the question that I asked. How do we stop this war? How do we prevent this from becoming a global catastrophic war that sucks all citizens into the fiddling fields (entertaining the generals and politicians who makes these war and force us to the battle grounds, man woman and child all playing for the politicians while they and their families bath in sun and eat and drink well at their reserved resorts)?

You agree with the case of WMD for this war and you got it. Now what? Do we let it go one, do we let it get bigger, or do we attempt to discourage those who are making it to stop. WMD, Bush and Saddam have all turned it on, now who will turn off this mess?
Now, most of us will go to the bible to answer this and that is great, but then again we will flash text after text at each other all day long and still no practical solution. So, then I am asking and looking for a practical solution. What will shut this war down? And how?

Now it seems out of fear there are already support and popular speculations of what happen to the WMD, and the speculation is that the WMD was slipped into Syria or some other place. Freedomfight has made a point, “If the US administration allowed Saddam sneak out “WMD” out of Iraq before the war, they are again Dumb…”

Dumb in this sense I have defined to mean: preventing the WMD from being sneaked out of Iraq should have been more a priority than the war, more a priority to the security of the world. More priority than the oil, more priority than setting up permanent US military bases in Iraq. More a priority than disbanding Iraqi security. More of a priority than humiliating and alienating US traditional allies. More of a priority than controlling the Iraqi government. More of a priority than kicking down doors and turning the Iraqis against the US soldiers and the US.

But it seems the later have all been more priority than preventing in every which way the WMD from being move. Since the administration knew they were there, then they must know where they were hidden to make such a strong case for war. Since the administration knew all of this, they should have made every efforts to prevent it from being moved, or the administration could have begun the strike at that very point and instead of speculations, striking at the moving of WMD could have started the war and there would have been far more understanding and dedicated support to this war than they have now. I am sure I made my point, so then I will now move on.

Let us assume for a moment that the stockpiles of Iraq WMD exist, and that it was in Iraq to the build of the case for war. Of all the theories and simulations of theories that I have heard there is not one theory and of all the ways to move the huge stock pile of WMD all the experts still agree that this stock pile would have easily been detected.

Since we are going to say they are in Syria, and since we are already at it again ready to support another war on Syria then I think a clear graphic simulation would be more effective to support this war. The question and the reality is how is it the US and the UN knew this, how is that they were wrong saying where the WMD were. The UN inspection and US chief inspector David Kay have not detected one single trace and that there is absolutely nothing even today to indicate that it was there in the first place nor to indicate that it is anywhere in Iraq or any where else for that matter?

The next question is: How silly it is for Iraq’s neighbors not to be concern for their own safety and not to have placed their agents on the ground in Iraq to leak to the US and UN about this. It would have mad far more sense for them to do this if only to get the US blessing, praise and friendship rather than war and missiles later. Not only did they not squeal they also didn’t participate in the war against Iraq and is still not supporting the war efforts (perhaps secretly but not openly).

However, furthermore the US has already suggested that they were “almost all wrong.” Why do we have a problem putting the war over WMD idea to rest as a means to continue to justify this war? Not only is the idea WMD for war wrong there are some of us who are not speaking facts that are once again speculating and encouraging yet another war. If the WMD existed at the time that lead to the built –up to the war and it slipped pass US and UN surveillance and went to Syria, then it will happen again, again and again, because they have not yet come up with the answer how this happened. In a game of cards, if you don’t have all your cards to start with, how can you win?

If we are going to keep making wars out of speculations and being wrong, how then can we curve terrorism? What would be the point on the war on terrorism? I would not like to be wrong on this but I don’t think anyone is going to attack the US with WMD, not Syria not Iran, no one.

And I would like to be wrong on this also, if there is going to be the firing of missiles with WMD warheads I am certain that it will be the US that will fire them off first. So until the US does so first, no such country will do so. CG said himself “Saddam might be a monster but he is not a fool.” We may have a lot of monsters with WMD but I don’t think we have any one foolish enough to bother with the US on this point.” I have a lot of confidence on this and I am sure the US does also. So, then, what is all this fear about?

Now about bisecting, I have written on several points and the trick is to not pick out my weakest point in regards to your strongest point and ignore the rest of what I said. My main point is HOW DO WE STOP THIS WAR? OR do you think we should just leave it let it go on as it is?

There are only two ways to end a war. Win it or lose it.

To win a war one must, by force of arms, or by fear, or intimidation, or propaganda (usually a combination of all four) destroy the enemies will, or ability to fight. Thereby driving him to surrender, or to negotiate for peace. Anything else is to lose the war no matter how it is named - "A Strategic Withdrawal." "A Diplomatic Solution." "A Suspension of Hostilities." It is all losing, which in some cases ain't so bad but it depends on whom you lose to!

Of course, if you lose, you can always claim you won! Saddam claimed to have won the first Gulf War.

There are only two ways to end a war. Win it or lose it.

To win a war one must, by force of arms, or by fear, or intimidation, or propaganda (usually a combination of all four) destroy the enemies will, or ability to fight. Thereby driving him to surrender, or to negotiate for peace. Anything else is to lose the war no matter how it is named - "A Strategic Withdrawal." "A Diplomatic Solution." "A Suspension of Hostilities." It is all losing, which in some cases ain't so bad but it depends on whom you lose to!

Of course, if you lose, you can always claim you won! Saddam claimed to have won the first Gulf War.

Ok CG, so then again let us say you must either lose or win to end the war. Nevertheless there is a way.

Lets choose lose the war, and then lets choose the first two out of the there that you mentioned in losing in order to end the war lets look at "A Strategic Withdrawal." Or "A Diplomatic Solution." What do we lose? Who lose? The war is stopped this way no more killing no more dead Americans, Iraqis, Arabs, no more terrorist, no more pain, no more anger, no more missiles and military bases exploding from attacks, there is only love and happiness and every body respect each other and getting along. Does not every body win? Is the war not stopped this way and with out an other shot or death, no more anger?

Is it worth it to end it this way? So then what is so bad about this way? If the war is stopped this way and every body is getting along loving each other what is lost?

We have a lots of point in forum that not much of us are considering.

Youricbrown mention some very interesting practical points as well. “We just need to stop the cycle of war and return to the periods of confluence, when arrangements were made for Christian pilgrims to make their way to the Holy Land and scholars across religious divides were invited to debate at royal durbars, or courts.” What do we have to lose?

Ok CG, so then again let us say you must either lose or win to end the war. Nevertheless there is a way.

Lets choose lose the war, and then lets choose the first two out of the there that you mentioned in losing in order to end the war lets look at "A Strategic Withdrawal." Or "A Diplomatic Solution." What do we lose? Who lose? The war is stopped this way no more killing no more dead Americans, Iraqis, Arabs, no more terrorist, no more pain, no more anger, no more missiles and military bases exploding from attacks, there is only love and happiness and every body respect each other and getting along. Does not every body win? Is the war not stopped this way and with out an other shot or death, no more anger?

Is it worth it to end it this way? So then what is so bad about this way? If the war is stopped this way and every body is getting along loving each other what is lost?

We have a lots of point in forum that not much of us are considering.

Youricbrown mention some very interesting practical points as well. “We just need to stop the cycle of war and return to the periods of confluence, when arrangements were made for Christian pilgrims to make their way to the Holy Land and scholars across religious divides were invited to debate at royal durbars, or courts.” What do we have to lose?

We have nothing to lose. Assuming that is that there is good will on both sides. However, I doubt the good will on the Islamic side. Terrorism will not stop if the US and the UK cut and run as the Spanish did, in fact it will increase. Terrorism will have been shown to be a "good" and useful tool against those that have no stomach for a fight.

In the short term, yes, the killings will stop but in the long term? Did you see the movie on A&E about Eisenhower? He made a speech about the invasion of Normandy (D-Day.) He said, and I paraphrase "We pay with some blood now, or gallons of blood later."

I don't think you really understand the fundamentalist Islamic mind. Gallons of blood is what they want - gallons of our blood. One way or another they will get it if they are not stopped. My views come not from the US propaganda but from my experience with Islam - both moderate and extremist, that I gleaned years before this stuff started. I agree with you, this war should never have happened at this time, but it has! It must be won. The cost will be high. Yet, it is a cost that must be paid. All fundamentalist Islam wants is the submission of the Infidel (that is you and me) to their faith and rule. Allah requires it. Islam must have it. If we back off they will get it and I can assure you, you will not like it.

Hi Iupdate, I am answering your previous post to me today.

Yes, I kind of favour the US stance on the "war", 'cause it really seems to me they tried their best to to avoid it! NOT really taking sides, but when you consider that the insurgents are hell-bent on wanting to kill Americans, Jews and Christians, then pray tell me how do you deal with a group like that?

I thought I answered your question re "How do we stop this war?" [Do you think the war with the Israelis and the Palestinians will ever stop?]. In my previous post I said that I think this war will end in Armageddon, the final battle on earth, that is what I said! The US is determined to do what they want to do; the insurgents are determined to do what they want to do. How can two such intransigent groups be stopped?

I don't think the US were completely sure there were WMDs in Iraq. They could not have been because Saddam kept kicking the inspectors out! That in itself seemed very suspicious. Its like the preponderance of evidence seemed to indicate that Saddam was concealing WMDs. (Similar to how you can be convicted in a court of law on circumstantial evidence). I don't think anyone wanted war. (Notice I usually use the word Attack instead of War). But because of the way Saddam acted and the evidence the US gathered, it seemed the US concluded that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorists and they better end this business of terrorism by starting with Saddam.

You talk about the surrounding nations being able to get evidence whether WMDs were in Iraq. I don't know if the surrounding nations are Muslims but if they are, maybe they didn't want to go against their brothers.

I don't know that the US would not be attacked by WMDs. In this day and time anything can happen! Neither do I think the US would be the first to fire WMDs. The US is a democratic state with civilised laws and many checks and balances in place. Yes, if they are sure another country is going to fire on them, don't you think they should defend themselves? (I for one would use a cannon to kill a mosquito. It does not make sense to take risky chances in these serious times!). When your back is against the wall, you have to fight back in self defense!

I get the feeling that the insurgents are like the school bully who would suddenly jump on you and beat the daylights out of you for absolutely nothing!

We have nothing to lose. Assuming that is that there is good will on both sides. However, I doubt the good will on the Islamic side. Terrorism will not stop if the US and the UK cut and run as the Spanish did, in fact it will increase. Terrorism will have been shown to be a "good" and useful tool against those that have no stomach for a fight.

In the short term, yes, the killings will stop but in the long term? Did you see the movie on A&E about Eisenhower? He made a speech about the invasion of Normandy (D-Day.) He said, and I paraphrase "We pay with some blood now, or gallons of blood later."

I don't think you really understand the fundamentalist Islamic mind. Gallons of blood is what they want - gallons of our blood. One way or another they will get it if they are not stopped. My views come not from the US propaganda but from my experience with Islam - both moderate and extremist, that I gleaned years before this stuff started. I agree with you, this war should never have happened at this time, but it has! It must be won. The cost will be high. Yet, it is a cost that must be paid. All fundamentalist Islam wants is the submission of the Infidel (that is you and me) to their faith and rule. Allah requires it. Islam must have it. If we back off they will get it and I can assure you, you will not like it.


CG, I like this. This is great -- it more than supports my views.

When I was in my teens an Englishman with whom I worked told me that for wars to end, both sides must agree to lay their weapons down and DO so. In the case of the terrorists this seems far fetched!

We have nothing to lose. Assuming that is that there is good will on both sides. However, I doubt the good will on the Islamic side. Terrorism will not stop if the US and the UK cut and run as the Spanish did, in fact it will increase. Terrorism will have been shown to be a "good" and useful tool against those that have no stomach for a fight.

In the short term, yes, the killings will stop but in the long term? Did you see the movie on A&E about Eisenhower? He made a speech about the invasion of Normandy (D-Day.) He said, and I paraphrase "We pay with some blood now, or gallons of blood later."

I don't think you really understand the fundamentalist Islamic mind. Gallons of blood is what they want - gallons of our blood. One way or another they will get it if they are not stopped. My views come not from the US propaganda but from my experience with Islam - both moderate and extremist, that I gleaned years before this stuff started. I agree with you, this war should never have happened at this time, but it has! It must be won. The cost will be high. Yet, it is a cost that must be paid. All fundamentalist Islam wants is the submission of the Infidel (that is you and me) to their faith and rule. Allah requires it. Islam must have it. If we back off they will get it and I can assure you, you will not like it.

CG- First of all in order for me to support one side, I must ignore a whole lot of facts, I must turn my head to a lot of historical facts and future consequences. Secondly, many of us have our experience in one way or the other in fear of Islamic pranks. I was aboard a 747 when two men onboard threaten that there was a bomb on board the aircraft in hopes to divert the aircraft and make us all miserable. They achieved some of what they were after, but not all. The bomb turned out not to be true, they were having a good time over people bones rattling like snakes in their seats out of fear. When we arrive in NY they were arrested none the less. Was I afraid? I think that is as scary as it gets thirty thousand feet in the sky! But do I hate these men and want to see them destroyed?

Many aboard the plain that day thought so, but not me not at all. CG the personal reasons to give support to one side of peace is not much different than giving support to peace based on propaganda, it is the same. I don’t think we should make the decision for the world in this way, most of us may be afraid but this reason is not fair for war and killing. As I live my life according to my personal experiences I could never conform my sight for the world based on my personal fear. My fear is for me and no other, I must think not only of myself, but also of others and of future generations from now and peace is what I think, and I can not think of no other way to peace but peace. I oppose this war in the name of peace and love, this time, this war is useless, it began without justification and shall end this way.

Lets look at Saddam, he was so or horrific (so we are told) and now that he is gone I think the people should stand up against the insurgents and Islamic terrorist in the name of freedom. But they are not doing this, they are dieing anyway but they are not standing up for their freedom with the US. I say Saddam could not have been as, the Iraqis are free from Saddam and they should stand up against the terrorist and die because they are all dieing any way. If it was so bad under Saddam then dieing for freedom is worth it, but they are not, something is very wrong here.

This war is killing people, and just what is being achieved? From almost every war in the pass, what has been achieved? We know many innocent people are being killed? The satisfaction that comes from killing, killing terrorist may be a victory. The trouble here is those who are killed is not the problem, the problem is those that are left behind to endure the pain. The problem is those that you fail to kill, and if you manage to kill them, you still have a problem because you always leave others behind. Do you “Kill them all” and just how?

So how can we win by winning a war? When do we win a war? I do not at all think that those that are proclaimed to be terrorist want to win the war, but rather they want a solution and want to be left alone, I am sure. The government has limited themselves as if they are emperors wearying themselves of diplomacy and negotiations with the civilians. The civilians are willing to negotiate with the government and I have every confident that it will result to consensus of peace rather than war.

I am not saying at all that these people do not need to be reborn but killing them is not being reborn. I said already that we kill because we fail. The terrorist kill because they fail. Our point of strength is also our point of weakness economy and death.

a) Through out all of human civilization its quest was the prize was always to dominate and economics today has become the race for this prize. Economics is a wonderful tool that humans have to live a disciplinary life with each other, but instead it has become a weapon itself to favoring a few.

b) We regardless life as a prize of God and death as the curse of the devil, this is the religious philosophy of most religions. Regardless, life and death is only one, like a cone.

We regard life as Gods prize then why do we choose to kill Gods prize rather than to preserve and negotiate with Gods prize? You said some time ago when you have two evil sides you choose the less evil side. Take a look into Cambodia from 1970 and see how this theory works? Or just show me where it worked? How much comes from putting one band of “thugs and assassin” to replace the other “band of thugs and assassin.” “Peter is not a bit better than Paul.” How does this fix anything? Regardless to whether the US wins or they lose, the there will be peace. The peace that will come from winning have as much a chances of falling apart in short or long in the same way it fall apart in losing. We have absolutely no history to show that either way makes a different. The point is we need the peace to begin and to work always with peace. As long as we have peace as regardless to how the peace begins we have something to work with and to make everlasting. But as long as the fighting goes on we have absolutely nothing to work with.

Hey Guys!
I have remained silent for a while now, glad to see the thread is still going full speed.

Yorick, it is nice to see you join the thread, I fully agree with what you write in your posts-both side should be viewed from an unbiased standpoint and from there inevitably stems the conclusion that talk and diplomacy solves much more then bombs, bullets and missiles.
IUpdate, you have made some very good points.

About winning the war on terrorism, this is what I think:

Quote: “After every ''victory'' you have more enemies. “ Jeanette Winterson

In other words, every step the US takes in the war on terror is only pulling it deeper and deeper into the dark pit of war, danger and terrorism. Check out this game/simulation on the war on terror: http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm
Notice how the amount of mujahadeens increases with every dropped bomb and efforts to “kill ‘em all” only results in more appearing and the city rebuilding. This little simulation is a masterpiece and expresses exactly what I think about the whole war and what is the result of it. Please try it and write what you observe.

Thank you

CG- First of all in order for me to support one side, I must ignore a whole lot of facts, I must turn my head to a lot of historical facts and future consequences. , this war is useless, it began without justification and shall end this way..

Why would you have to do that? If you know the historical facts you will see that this kind of fundamentalism always leads to trouble. As for future consequences? That is very hard to predict but decisions must be made you cant not make them for fear of making a mistake.

Lets look at Saddam, he was so or horrific (so we are told) and now that he is gone I think the people should stand up against the insurgents and Islamic terrorist in the name of freedom. But they are not doing this, they are dieing anyway but they are not standing up for their freedom with the US. I say Saddam could not have been as, the Iraqis are free from Saddam and they should stand up against the terrorist and die because they are all dieing any way. If it was so bad under Saddam then dieing for freedom is worth it, but they are not, something is very wrong here.

The problem is that Islam has a very hard time criticizing Islam. Islam has a very hard time admitting that Infidels must "save" them. Allah is the one who saves. As one Iraqi said, "its is better to suffer under Islam than to be free under the West." America made a mistake when it said that it came to free the people - only Allah frees. One could also say that the people have been under the thumb of Saddam for so long that they are afraid to stand up. They are also afraid that the Americans will not support them. During the last Gulf War the US promised to help those that rose up. They did not help them and Saddam killed hundreds of them.

This war is killing people, and just what is being achieved? From almost every war in the pass, what has been achieved? .

The American Civil War freed the Slaves. World War I & II stopped the Germans from taking over Europe and the rest of the world. By the way, you don't have to kill them all. All you have to do is to destroy their will to fight on.

So how can we win by winning a war? When do we win a war? I do not at all think that those that are proclaimed to be terrorist want to win the war, but rather they want a solution and want to be left alone, I am sure. .

If you believe that then you do not know why the terrorists are fighting.

I am not saying at all that these people do not need to be reborn but killing them is not being reborn. I said already that we kill because we fail. The terrorist kill because they fail. .

Right! War is the result of everything else failing. But you can't just give up!

a) Through out all of human civilization its quest was the prize was always to dominate and economics today has become the race for this prize. Economics is a wonderful tool that humans have to live a disciplinary life with each other, but instead it has become a weapon itself to favoring a few. .

Sorry, don't get this.

b) We regardless life as a prize of God and death as the curse of the devil, this is the religious philosophy of most religions. Regardless, life and death is only one, like a cone. .

I think I get your point here but death is not held to be of the devil in many religions. It is held to be the result of life, of taking birth. Islam says that a good death is one where you take a few Infidels with you.

We regard life as Gods prize then why do we choose to kill Gods prize rather than to preserve and negotiate with Gods prize? You said some time ago when you have two evil sides you choose the less evil side. Take a look into Cambodia from 1970 and see how this theory works? Or just show me where it worked? How much comes from putting one band of “thugs and assassin” to replace the other “band of thugs and assassin.” “Peter is not a bit better than Paul.” .

In the case of Cambodia, no body cared! That was the problem! Yet, in life a choice must be made. Sometimes it is the wrong choice.

How does this fix anything? Regardless to whether the US wins or they lose, the there will be peace. The peace that will come from winning have as much a chances of falling apart in short or long in the same way it fall apart in losing. We have absolutely no history to show that either way makes a different. The point is we need the peace to begin and to work always with peace. As long as we have peace as regardless to how the peace begins we have something to work with and to make everlasting. But as long as the fighting goes on we have absolutely nothing to work with.

I agree with you but in order to have peace both sides must have good will and a desire for peace. Islam, in general, has little good will! Fundamental Islam, none at all! They desire the world to be as they are. The Fundamental Islamic compromise is 100% for Allah, nothing for everyone else. We have seen this before in history. That was the Fundamental Christian philosophy at one time (still is in some minds) Much blood had to be shed before they realized that there was room in this world for other faiths. Fundamental Islam has yet to learn this.

For you and I to live in peace I have to allow you to think, worship, live as you please. You have to do the same for me. If one of us cannot allow that then there is no peace. History has shown us that peace is a "group project." It cannot live on one side alone.

Hey Guys!
I have remained silent for a while now, glad to see the thread is still going full speed.

Yorick, it is nice to see you join the thread, I fully agree with what you write in your posts-both side should be viewed from an unbiased standpoint and from there inevitably stems the conclusion that talk and diplomacy solves much more then bombs, bullets and missiles.
IUpdate, you have made some very good points.

About winning the war on terrorism, this is what I think:

Quote: “After every ''victory'' you have more enemies. “ Jeanette Winterson

In other words, every step the US takes in the war on terror is only pulling it deeper and deeper into the dark pit of war, danger and terrorism. Check out this game/simulation on the war on terror: http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm
Notice how the amount of mujahadeens increases with every dropped bomb and efforts to “kill ‘em all” only results in more appearing and the city rebuilding. This little simulation is a masterpiece and expresses exactly what I think about the whole war and what is the result of it. Please try it and write what you observe.

Thank you

I am afraid the game is just that, a game. But let me ask you. Suppose a man were to break into your home and threaten your family. Would you say, "Well, I will not stop him. After all it will only upset his family and if I kill him, or have him arrested, there will only be another house-breaker to take his place."

Let me give you a quote. I will have to paraphrase it because I cant think of it correctly right now - "All that evil men need to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

P.S. Always good to hear from you and the others on this thread. I wonder if Fundamental Islam would allow us to write so freely?

Hi Iupdate, I am answering your previous post to me today.

Yes, I kind of favour the US stance on the "war", 'cause it really seems to me they tried their best to to avoid it! NOT really taking sides, but when you consider that the insurgents are hell-bent on wanting to kill Americans, Jews and Christians, then pray tell me how do you deal with a group like that?

I thought I answered your question re "How do we stop this war?" [Do you think the war with the Israelis and the Palestinians will ever stop?]. In my previous post I said that I think this war will end in Armageddon, the final battle on earth, that is what I said! The US is determined to do what they want to do; the insurgents are determined to do what they want to do. How can two such intransigent groups be stopped?

I don't think the US were completely sure there were WMDs in Iraq. They could not have been because Saddam kept kicking the inspectors out! That in itself seemed very suspicious. Its like the preponderance of evidence seemed to indicate that Saddam was concealing WMDs. (Similar to how you can be convicted in a court of law on circumstantial evidence). I don't think anyone wanted war. (Notice I usually use the word Attack instead of War). But because of the way Saddam acted and the evidence the US gathered, it seemed the US concluded that Iraq was a hotbed of terrorists and they better end this business of terrorism by starting with Saddam.

You talk about the surrounding nations being able to get evidence whether WMDs were in Iraq. I don't know if the surrounding nations are Muslims but if they are, maybe they didn't want to go against their brothers.

I don't know that the US would not be attacked by WMDs. In this day and time anything can happen! Neither do I think the US would be the first to fire WMDs. The US is a democratic state with civilised laws and many checks and balances in place. Yes, if they are sure another country is going to fire on them, don't you think they should defend themselves? (I for one would use a cannon to kill a mosquito. It does not make sense to take risky chances in these serious times!). When your back is against the wall, you have to fight back in self defense!

I get the feeling that the insurgents are like the school bully who would suddenly jump on you and beat the daylights out of you for absolutely nothing!

Great Demos here is my answer to your questions from yesterday:
You ask me; [Do you think the war with the Israelis and the Palestinians will ever stop?] Yes I do, by far, but only as the greater of the two, the most intelligent and most humane of the two relent to the peace, especially now that Israel realize the reality that there will be no US troops pushing forward westward into Syria from the boarders of Iraq to meet Israeli forces pushing northward of Akko and Nazareth and eastward from Lebanon.

How can two such intransigent groups be stopped? My answer is the same, only as the greater of them, the most intelligent and most humane of the two relent to the peace, if that is what they are after. Peace is inevitable now that the US have failed in its efforts to “go it alone” they have no other choice but to listen. Margaret Tutwiler now shares this view.

Tutwiler, who announced her resignation from the U.S. State Department in April 2004 at the end of the bloodiest month in Iraq sitting before a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee overseeing her confirmation that when it comes to the complex reality of winning hearts and minds: Margaret Tutwiler agrees that;

“There is not one magic bullet, magic program or magic solution. As much as we would like to think Washington knows best, we have to be honest and admit we do not necessarily always have all the answers.”
“In her short tenure, Tutwiler emphasized more active listening on the part of the U.S. government – including listening to its diplomats serving on the frontlines – and expanding the discussion of American values and policies to public venues outside of traditional elites in diplomacy and government. “We only have to look at the activities of U.S. corporations overseas to see the value of being present and engaged in neighborhoods that we in government have for too long neglected.” She also announced a slight increase in educational exchanges, particularly youth exchanges, focused primarily on the Middle East.”

About Armageddon
You said “In my previous post I said that I think this war will end in Armageddon, the final battle on earth, which is what I said!” I am sorry I didn’t know that this was your answer, I thought it was just a common phrase or say, I hear it so much that I over looked it.

You know there is a discussion here on whether the Bible is fact or faith. Armageddon can only be a fact if we agree to label some event Armageddon. Now you can sit back and; 1) wait for this episode of Armageddon to begin or come or never come. Or 2) we can say it is here already. Or, 3) we can do something to prevent it from happening.

Armageddon may not be a fact until we label something Armageddon but I can for sure say that this war is a fact. We can wait for judgment day to come or we can call this war or some event judgment day. Peace is the call Great Demos, war achieves, but peace achieves much, much, much more. Love is the call, my call is peace and love to both the civilians and governments and I can never get weary of this.

As long as there are battle fronts being erected in the scream of war, I will call for peace. While there is peace I call for peace and when there is war my call is peace. Victory, victory not victory by the way of the bullet, missile, bomb, death, suffering and pain, no but by the most humane of them all listening to each other and creating peaceful and respectable ways.

We are galaxies in outer space, ahead of our knowledge and ideas (we don’t know yet what we will be doing with this), but if we can do this and yet without use for it, then sure we can achieve peace through peaceful means, and we must if our race is to continue existing and dwelling among the lesser mammals (animals) that we label our selves greater and above!

Quoted by Iupdate:
“Peter is not a bit better than Paul.”

Iupdate, if Paul is a suicidal bomber who takes joy and pride in blowing up his own body into smithereens and killing others in the process, then Peter if FAR better than Paul.

You talk about promoting peace and ending the "war" and all those good things -- pray, tell me how could suicidal bombers become involved in the process of promoting peace? [A note to Yorick: Yes, I think we have to let our children know the reality of this war. They need to know what they will have to confront in this life!].

Quoted by Iupdate:
“Peter is not a bit better than Paul.”

Iupdate, if Paul is a suicidal bomber who takes joy and pride in blowing up his own body into smithereens and killing others in the process, then Peter if FAR better than Paul.

You talk about promoting peace and ending the "war" and all those good things -- pray, tell me how could suicidal bombers become involved in the process of promoting peace? [A note to Yorick: Yes, I think we have to let our children know the reality of this war. They need to know what they will have to confront in this life!].
Great Demos: you asked: “Iupdate, if Paul is a suicidal bomber who takes joy and pride in blowing up his own body into smithereens and killing others in the process, then Peter if FAR better than Paul.”

Great Demos “Peter is not a bit better than Paul” is a phrase that means to say that both Peter and Paul do the same thing in this case both Peter and Paul “blowing up his own body into smithereens and killing others in the process” but you turn the head to one and condemn the other. For example: Do you know why the British condemns the actions of the Israel government and regard the actions of the Jewish government as acts of terrorism and the Americans refuse to do so? Let’s take a closer look, I will answer this partly you can tell me the rest.

When the British occupied the territory of Palestine in 1946. British acted to the civilian population and political movement of Israel as emperors and the Israelis did not take this lying down either. Do you know what they did? Israelis resorted to suicide bombings, they “blew their bodies into smithereens” to drive the British out. The Israelis are “Peter.” Today the Palestinians resort to terrorism to drive the Israel out by “blowing their bodies into smithereens.” The Palestinians are “Paul.”

Which do you condemn? You condemn Paul and not Peter? Or do you condemn Peter and not Paul? I condemn both sides in all conflicts, but I only by dealing with most humane of them all will there be results. Are you making good headway taking sides? Do you know or remember the “Irgun’s”? Do you know who or what they are today? If you care and if your way is to be fair you will check this out and many more facts if not for your self at least for your world our world. Perhaps if you do so you may not only see why things are the way it is or how it got this way but you might also see the way to change it, the way to speak to the most humane of them. You speak of God and I understand God is waiting patiently for us (humans) to stabilize ourselves and our situation. Call it fact call it faith but it is this way and when we are ready there is nothing to stop us, that’s a fact.

Is it not Jesus who said “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so in earth.…” Do you know this and do you understand this in a practical –spiritual way? What do you think this means? To me this means we (humans) are responsible for making it so, the same way we are responsible for making the mess, we are responsible for cleaning it up, not God and not Jesus alone, but we humans today and tomorrow. It is we who ought to make earth that which heaven is, and it is not going anywhere until and unless we do it or stop doing it.

Bush cabinet was strongly together but now it is dissolving, CIA chief George Tenet is resigned (and I am sure he will tell us more truth as the rest of the cabinet who resigned before him and after him) and it will go this way for a while not only for the success of Bush’s election chance but to show that peter is not a bit better than Paul. Saddam cabinet was dissolved but is now coming back together.

JW Bush and S Hussein who is better? Each break the rules to make rules, each forces his way to make his way reality, the only difference is that Hussein had some time to live his reality but Bush will not. The law is the law and regardless it stands. If there is a shoot out between two bandits over “a damsel in distress” when the police arrives which ever one that is left behind will be apprehended, stand trial and perhaps go to prison and the damsel will walk away, she didn’t break any rule. So then, perhaps as good as Bush intention for the world is he must be brought to trial as does Hussein, both must face the consequences of the law, and this have nothing to do with who like who or who hate who. Peter and Paul must face trial they both did the same thing.

You said: “You talk about promoting peace and ending the "war" and all those good things -- pray, tell me how could suicidal bombers become involved in the process of promoting peace?” Great Demos: I can not answer this question the way it is phrased, but what I can say this, there is a whole lot of things that need to change and we must look not at one thing to fix everything but each all at the same time.

Understand “where I am coming from.” There is no point in putting new tires on the car when the car need wheel alignment and there is no point aligning the wheels if the bearings need to change and there is no point changing the ‘bushings” when the wheel mounts are warn down and on and on. What can we expect by fixing one thing when everything else needs to fix but we ignore the facts to everything else? How much can we really care about what we are fixing when all around it affects it? What is the point of fixing one thing and not fixing the rest? One answer will do for all the questions, but only a practical answer will do but regardless to what answer you give I will respect your answer.

How can you say 9-11 was staged, next we will have people saying the bush admin was behind that. It was either staged by them or they simply allowed it to happen for their purpose

Well.. by saying it ws taged I was saying that US administration is behind it.

Explain this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5131524/
LONDON - More than a year before 9/11, a Pakistani-British man told the FBI an incredible tale: that he had been trained by bin Laden’s followers to hijack airplanes and was now in America to carry out an attack. The FBI questioned him for weeks, but then let him go home, and never followed up. Now, the former al-Qaida insider is talking.

advertisement
In March, 2000, Niaz Khan said he was down and out, waiting tables in a curry house north of London, overwhelmed by gambling debts and increasingly drawn to the message of a radical local imam. The imam extolled Osama bin Laden and the rewards of dying for jihad.

Then, one night, outside a casino in Manchester, England, Khan said two mysterious men approached him. “First they say, ‘We can help you,’" recalls Khan. "I say, ‘How can you help me?’ Say, ‘OK, come sit in car.’ Said ‘Do you heard Osama name’?”

Khan, now 30, said the men told him they were working on behalf of Osama bin Laden, knew all about his background and gambling debts — information presumably gleaned from his fellow mosque members — and offered to teach him the ways of jihad.

They gave Khan several thousand dollars and flew him to Lahore, Pakistan, where he waited for instructions in a local hotel. He says that bin Laden’s followers then drove him, blindfolded, to a nearby safe house.

In training
Khan told NBC News that for the next few weeks he was trained by al-Qaida to hijack passenger planes, and then sent to the United States. But when he told the FBI, headquarters was skeptical and, after several weeks, senior FBI officials ordered him released to the custody of British intelligence. Khan said, “I told them before the 9/11, about more than year, be… hijacking in America or on America airline.”

Khan said that at the Lahore training compound he and up to 30 other men were taught hijacking basics, including how to smuggle guns and other weapons through airport security, techniques to overpower passengers and crew and how to get into a cockpit.

Khan says he did not think about all the other people he might have killed and, at the time, didn’t care. “Not that time," he said. "If I die, it doesn’t matter because this life anyway, it’s no good.”

After about a week of training, Khan said he was given money to fly a circuitous route from Pakistan to Doha, Qatar, to London, to Zurich, Switzerland, back to London, and then off to New York. The purpose, he said, was to allow him to observe flight operations and on-board security measures.

Upon landing at JFK airport, Khan says he was supposed to go to a taxi stand, find a man in a white prayer cap and use a code. “He say, ‘Your name Babu Khan?’ " said Khan. "And you will be saying, ‘Yes, my name Babu Khan.’ ‘Your name Babu Khan?’ You say, ‘Yes, my name Babu Khan.’”

But Khan claims he got cold feet. Instead of meeting his contact, he slipped away, retreated to New York, then took a bus to Atlantic City and gambled away almost all his money. Fearful that he had blown al-Qaida’s cash, and aware that his terrorist trainers had copied his passport information and easily knew how to find him, Khan turned himself in and confessed. “I’ve been to Pakistan," he said. "I know about this hijacking, something going on.”

Khan said his trainers never told him exactly what his terrorist mission in the United States would be. He said he was told he would learn more details from a half dozen other trained terrorists who, he was told, already were in the U.S.

For three weeks, FBI counter-terrorist agents in Newark, N.J. interrogated Khan, created composite drawings of his terrorist trainer and a fellow student and then wired Khan up and took him back to JFK airport, hoping to smoke out other conspirators. But they had no luck.

Lie-detector tests
Congress’ 9/11 report confirms that in April, 2000, an unnamed “walk-in” told the FBI he “was to meet five or six persons” — some of them pilots — who would take over a plane and fly to Afghanistan, or blow the plane up. The report adds that the “walk-in” passed a lie-detector test.

NBC News has learned that Khan passed not one but two FBI polygraphs. A former FBI official says Newark agents believed Khan and tried to aggressively follow every lead in the case, but word came from headquarters saying, “return him to London and forget about it” ...

Why would they say that but to allow 9/11 to happen?

And:
http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?photoid=/cp/news/top/i/osama_pic135.jpg&floc=NW_1-T&oldflok=FF-RTO-PLS&idq=/ff/story/0002/20040604/0935099146.htm
"Taliban told US it would give up Osama"

And also:
http://www.letsroll911.org/
http://911uncovered.com/

and other multiple sites...

CG-thank you for your respond, here are a few of my remarks:

I said; In order to support one side of this battle I must turn my head to the facts.
You asked: “Why would you have to do that?”
I think I was pretty clear on this point to state the lease, if I am going to be on the US side I must ignore a lot of things. If I am going to be on the side of the insurgents I must ignore a lot of things, If I am going to be on the terrorist side I must ignore a lot of things. Either side I support I must tell myself a lot of lies to satisfy myself with the decision I make. If I don’t know these facts then I can feel comfortable supporting one of the sides. Or if I know the facts but agree to turn my head then I can do so only out of personal reasons, hate, I am paid to do so, or I am looking for something for doing so. Instead, what I know keeps me centered.

You said: “If you know the historical facts you will see that this kind of fundamentalism always leads to trouble.”
What do not lead to trouble? Aircrafts were made to carry and deliver passengers and freight ‘to and fro”, but instead they were use for missiles. But, Aircraft were used as missiles many times not only during 9-11 but also during WW2 by the Jap’s who flue the kamikaze missions into battleships.
Everything leads to trouble. Now I do agree with you that there are extreme groups, and I do not at all condone their actions, but these extreme groups are gathering support of the fundamentalist who are not so radical or extreme by the way this administration has handled. Now we have tied them all together, but know for a fact that they are all not that way. Careful handling of the world’s affair was not only the US administrations duty but responsibility so as to prevent support to these extreme groups or to give the extremist sympathy and that other legitimate activist group remain separate form the fight, but they failed.

You said: “As for future consequences? That is very hard to predict but decisions must be made you cant not make them for fear of making a mistake.”
I agree, but decisions made to involve the world or others should be well calculated either scientifically or analytically so to not such a big difficult to clean up mess. And the equation or the plan should allow for adjustments for errors, varying conditions or things that were not anticipated. The plan to include Iraq in the war on terror is certainly lacks all of the above.

You said: “The problem is that Islam has a very hard time criticizing Islam. Islam has a very hard time admitting that Infidels must "save" them. Allah is the one who saves. As one Iraqi said, "its is better to suffer under Islam than to be free under the West." America made a mistake when it said that it came to free the people - only Allah frees.”
So now what can the US do, what can we do?

You said: “The American Civil War freed the Slaves. World War I & II stopped the Germans from taking over Europe and the rest of the world. By the way, you don't have to kill them all.”
“Kill them all” is posted on this forum by another user, I use it to illustrate the very point you made. I am glad you realize this if only others would. It is impossible to “kill them all” especially since they have all been spread out and germinating itself every where. It is as possible to “kill them all” only as possible as it was to achieve victory in North Korean, Vietnam, etc in these areas the civilians (terrorist) were more contained, and every effort failed. How can you kill them all or even to destroy their will to fight on if we are making it possible for them to lose the will to live. If you read the link that “freedomfight” post here look at what Khan says "If I die, it doesn’t matter because this life anyway, it’s no good.” You can ask why try to “kill them all” or “die trying.”

You said: “If you believe that then you do not know why the terrorists are fighting.”
It is we who label the world terrorist because they do not agree with us or those who stand up to the policies of our governments. Not all of us agree that they are terrorist notices sometimes I say civilians (and I prefer to call them civilians), but I call them terrorist to make you and others feel comfortable for the sake of moving on in our arguments. Yes there are some groups that are genuine terrorist and I agree with you I do not know why they are fighting because they themselves do not know, so how is it possible for any one to know?

You said: “Right! War is the result of everything else failing. But you can't just give up!”
I do not at all suggest giving up, I only suggest peace through love rather than war.
I also suggested including everything at the same time in the try, otherwise we have give up a long time ago.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iupdate
a) Through out all of human civilization its quest was, the prize was always to dominate and economics today has become the race for this prize. Economics is a wonderful tool that humans have to live a disciplinary life with each other, but instead it has become a weapon itself to favoring a few. .

You said: “Sorry, don't get this.”
I will ignore this for now it is an other point that shifts the point a bit, furthermore I did not complete what I am saying here. I will come back to this perhaps some other time.

You said: “I think I get your point here but death is not held to be of the devil in many religions. It is held to be the result of life, of taking birth. Islam says that a good death is one where you take a few Infidels with you.”
Where I live is almost surrounded with churches and on Sunday all day all I hear coming from every direction is devil, devil, devil it seems as if the people do not go to hear the word of God, but that of the devil, it is the greater part of the preachers sermons. No wonder why we get it so wrong!

You said: “In the case of Cambodia, no body cared! That was the problem! Yet, in life a choice must be made. Sometimes it is the wrong choice.”
It seems more often wrong than right, but that is not the problem being right or wrong, the problem is that we allow it to remain for so long this way to the point sometimes where it appears right or is honored to be right!

You said: “I agree with you but in order to have peace both sides must have good will and a desire for peace. Islam, in general, has little good will!”
Why do you say Islam?

You said: “The Fundamental Islamic compromise is 100% for Allah, nothing for everyone else. We have seen this before in history. That was the Fundamental Christian philosophy at one time (still is in some minds) Much blood had to be shed before they realized that there was room in this world for other faiths. Fundamental Islam has yet to learn this.”
I agree, but only certain groups, not all.
The Christian were the same way and now it is rolling back again, how do we prevent the Christian from returning to this point again?

You said: “For you and I to live in peace I have to allow you to think, worship, live as you please. You have to do the same for me. If one of us cannot allow that then there is no peace. History has shown us that peace is a "group project." It cannot live on one side alone.”
I agree!