Total Motorcycle Community Forums

Your right the wall that Israel put up doesn't face the problem. Although I don't truly believe you are either.

Here's how I see it. Isreal fought a war and pushed back the arab residents and claimed the land as theirs. This is no different than what the U.S. or Canada did. The french claimed canadian soil and populated it originally and were later thrown off. The U.S. kicked out the British powers that be. To say that Isreal must leave because the palastien was there is foolish. They fought and won the right to live there.

As far as I know at least three offers were made by Isreal were made offering a large part of the land to be returned to Palastine and each time it was rejected.

The real problem is that the arab world hates the jews. Ya I know I am a bigot and racist by saying that. If you look at the position taken by government and the terrorists there end goal is not peace it is the removal of the Jewish people. Palastine believes that they are intitled to the land by birthright and the Jews aren't. Which leads to the bigger picture. Islam ya I know its a religion of peace and love. Expect I don't get how a religion that tells its followers that it must kill or convert nonbelievers peaceful. It also teaches that unless the people follow your Islam tenants they are infadels and not human. They are not required to recognize them as equals. Which leads to the problem we face. Since the Jews don't follow Islam they must be exterminated. The land is an afterthought. While not all arabs will take up arms they are all taugh this and believe it. There never will be any piece so long as the nation of Isreal exsists.

jjhotrods wrote:Who excactly was being misplaced?
In just about all cases the U.S. did so on the basis that those individuals/countries would be U.S. friendly and not plot against us.

Yes, even if the people of the opposing country democratically elected their leader. Hence the US - The bastion of democracy denied these nations the democratic process and their duly elected governments.

Yes in hinsight we can look back and find fault with just about every decision a government has made. The question that one must ask I think in relation to the event of the time is what was the rational behind the decision.

My irritaion with the comment of subjication is that it assumes the cause is greed and power on the part of the country.

The cause -is- greed and power. Always. Capitalism is fueled by greed. Governments are fueled by the lust for power. The mitigating circumstance in terms of greed is when both parties in the transaction feel that they have both benefitted. This is why we consider capitalism (in theory) to be good - both parties of a transaction get what they want. The US consistantly stacks the deck so that it gets the maximum benefit from any bargain without regard to the other party. It's a classic example of greed.

You mention that the US did what was right for itself for the time and circumstance. I'm not going to argue this point with you - of course the US does what is right for itself. The point of this topic, however, is the US ignoring causes of terrorism. The US, in its quest to do well for itself, fails to address the issues of the societies that it tampers with. This is the root cause of anti-American terrorism. This is plainly known in all levels of Government. Colin Powell knew it very well. He wrote an article for Foreign Policy magazine (a few months ago) that goes over the issue. But he is no longer Secretary of State, and with people like Powell out of the equasion, the US is bound to continue its path of creating situations which breed terrorism.

We now know that the path we have taken in the past -has been- wrong. It is indeed very easy to see the problems we've created in hindsight, and its also obvious to see that we are making the same mistakes again. A war on Terror doesn't benefit the US. It drains its military capability, scares its citizens, and empties the treasury. Yet it puts money into the pockets (as always) of those who benefit from war. Look at Bechtel, Halliburton and their ilk. They were chomping at the bit to rebuild Iraq before the war even started.

Yes, we will pay to rebuild Iraq. But we won't pay Iraqis ... we will loan Iraq money to rebuild, as long as they allow American Companies to do the rebuilding. Hence, all of the money we loaned never really enters the Iraqi economy - It simply filters back into America's corporate hands, while the Iraqi nation itself is supposed to come up with the money (And interest) to pay back these loans. Yes, Iraqis get a modernized Infrastructure, but one that belongs to a foreign nation. This is a source of extreme resentment to the common guy on the street - you know, the one most likely to strap a bomb to his chest? So it continues.

Here's how I see it. Isreal fought a war and pushed back the arab residents and claimed the land as theirs. This is no different than what the U.S. or Canada did. The french claimed canadian soil and populated it originally and were later thrown off. The U.S. kicked out the British powers that be. To say that Isreal must leave because the palastien was there is foolish. They fought and won the right to live there. As far as I know at least three offers were made by Isreal were made offering a large part of the land to be returned to Palastine and each time it was rejected.

No one says Israel must leave. But Israel cannot ever hope to combat terrorism by provoking even more resentment from displaced Palestinians. They must integrate their nation, open up their borders wide and allow equal opportunity. Palestine rejected offers with heavy caveats, so as not to become subjugated and the old guard that made these rejections is slowly being replaced. The future could be bright, but not with a ridiculous wall.

Finally, your last little bit is just plain wrong. Your knowledge of Islam doesn't appear to go beyond simple stereotype. In its history, Islam has much more of an acceptance for people of other races and cultures, and the Koran teaches the importance of allowing one to follow their own conscience. Islamic cultures throughout the middle ages and up to modern times have harbored both Christans and Jews alike in their communities with very rare exception. This at the same time Christians were raping, murdering, and pillaging anyone who was not of their belief. When Christians sacked Jerusalem and "Liberated" it from the Muslims, they found thriving communities of Christains and Jews. The Christain invaders then proceeded to pretty much kill everyone that was in the city - Muslim, Jew, and Christian alike. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he allowed the remaining christian invaders to leave peacefully, instead of taking revenge.

Today's reactionary Islamist groups (who are far and away the Minority in the Islamic World) are just that - reactionary.

What on earth could they possibly be reacting to?

techbmw your right in early islamic history great care was taken in preserving and even researching the ancient world. However the better part of Islam has been ruled by this sort of "stone-age", repressive movement. Which from what I've read of the koran and reading from various sources I have done leads me to believe that the Islamic world will remain at odds with the world for a long time.

My view of Islam is based on transcriptions I've been able to find of various verses. And while there are exceptions to everything only a small portion of the Islam world has maintained a progressive approach to anything.

Yes the Koran does teach acceptance and following your own conscience. But according to the prophet Mohomad a good believer can never make pacts or aggreemant with a nonbeliever and if they do it may only be done if the goal is to destroy or force conversion. Second the Koran shows a great deal of disdain towards Christians and Jews saying that they are the worst of the Infadels and are a scourge on the earth though not in that exact phrasing.

The Koran and Mohammed draw a distinction between believers and non-believers. The believer or converted are to be honored and respected. The nonbeliever is to be destroyed or converted and any and all means are accepted.

This ideollogy is what is being preached in mascs. So long as this is taught peace is only an illusion.

techbmw we don't subjugation. To truly subjugation all free choice must be removed. Actually the average american citizen is mor subjugated. Decisions are constantly made and forced upon us constantly by gov't. Because we have a bunch of people who either hate life or think they are more intellegant. Feeling that people must be forced to do what a small group believe is the greater good ignoring the individual will and self-interest.

Lets be honest gov't have been attempting to influence their neighbors since the beginning of time. What we do is no different. A person/country can only be ruled by rational self-interest and acknowledging the dignity of mankind. When people abuse for their own personal gain by stripping others of thier dignity or worse use guilt and this idea of the greater good then yes I would agree it is subjugation.

But only a fool I think make an ally of one who beliefs or goals conflict with their own. The only question is the results.

Besides any one of those countries can simply not listen to us or remove that portion that disagrees with us. We must choose between those groups that have the possibility of having influence in said country. But again the U.S. isn't the first or last. And even with the mistakes our system has benefitted a great portion of the world and still does. You will always have those who wish to control and attain power for themselves. Regardless of the system or government.

techbmw as long as you keep it respectful I'm glad to clarify or expound.

TechBMW wrote:Terrorists hate Americans for their economic imperialism and willingness to subjugate entire nations in order to protect their economic interests.

yep, i like the short version of the problem... that's pretty much "it" in a nutshell... none of us like people who skirt the real issues. All the "politically correct" talk is just hiding ulterior motives and B.S. ... it's a well-developed way of lying which has become an acceptable trait in the business world, and regular life. I like to cut right through it to wake people up.

Some people are quietly aggressive, others openly. At least with openly aggressive people they are speaking there mind. More people now dont want to deal with nor take responsibility for there actions in life... in our everyday lives we aren't always as friendly towards others as we think we are (or could be). We can get caught up in our own interests very easily, no different than large organizations.

I find motorcycling, bicycling and walking are all ways to see things more closely, and from a truer perspective... things you miss driving a car, and things you miss when you are too busy to slow down and appreciate the little things. I find as you get a little closer to the earth, on a bike and such, your frailty in an accident is much closer to our true frailty in life. (oops! getting too philosophical again )

I have great conversations with people everywhere I go now... taking time to slow down and chat with people everywhere I go. The great thing is everyone I talk with has something to teach. It really emphasizes the unity among the whole environment around us. And I am still helping myself out each time I take time for others.

The US government could learn some of that as well... as the stupid "white race" we are already reknowned the world over for bringing "our world" to other countries to "teach" people, while forgetting that all these people have learned alot and could teach us more than a thing or two about how they have lived, if we only stopped fighting with people over who's right, and just listened to their experience and the heart of what people are saying.

Large organizations are hard to control, but we can all do better as individuals, so i just start with the things I can do on a daily basis. My sense of humor always gets me in trouble, so i am used to being misunderstood. It's a lot like waving "hey" to other riders... don't stop waving just because others have or because others dont, becfause soon enough you become like them. Always smile and wave! Speak opening and truthfully even if truth is stranger than fiction as it is with half the things I chose to do in life.

//monkey

Man, I liked it better when the TMW forums where about motorcycles, not religion and politics.

Telesque wrote:Man, I liked it better when the TMW forums where about motorcycles, not religion and politics.

Aye, but thats what the soap box is for

Dang. I guess I'll just stick to rants about engineering flaws and horrible design concepts. (Have you seen the exhaust setup on a late model S-10? )

If it's important to you, and you want to say something about it, this is the place. There's not much to really say about an S-10, though. Consumer Guide, Consumer digest, and Consumer Reports have pretty much said all over the years. I'm always surprised to see a new one on the street....

oldnslo wrote:If it's important to you, and you want to say something about it, this is the place. There's not much to really say about an S-10, though. Consumer Guide, Consumer digest, and Consumer Reports have pretty much said all over the years. I'm always surprised to see a new one on the street....

Well, everything about anything has pretty much been said, I guess. Not like this topic hasn't been covered by who knows how many people/publications.

I guess as long as it's still informative, and educational, I really don't have any problems with it. Not like it would matter if I did, or anything. Ah well. I suppose the only reason I make comments like that *points a couple posts above* is because I'm due for another couple miles on the bike. Guess I oughta get working on that right now.