--- Aristo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I was quite drawn by the fact that only 1st class > passengers were targeted. Was it because the > Radical Islamic Terrorists reasoned that there > would be less Muslims in these compartments? If so, > is it true that Muslims in Mumbai are less able > to afford first class and if so why? Were they > aiming for largely Gujarati casualties as is > popularly claimed? Was there a subconscious > hatred toward the rich or the notion that not many > Muslims can afford first class? > Mario responds: > Aristo, Good stuff, man. After reading it I thought to myself, "So many to educate, so little time!" :-)) Please print this so you can absorb the details before responding with specifics of your own. There is nothing more ignorant than generalities. Don't worry if we finally decide to agree to disagree. > Let's take what you were drawn by one by one. > AX: "Muslims in Mumbai cannot afford First Class?" MG: Are you familiar with Bohris and Khojas who are Muslims that are far more affluent than the average Mumbaikar? > AX: "Were they aiming for Gujaratis..."? MG: Can anyone in Mumbai tell what mix of Indian communities are traveling on Western Railway locals between 6:00 and 6:30 pm, which is at the height of the rush period? > AX: "Subconscious hatred for the rich"? MG: These are Islamic terrorists we are talking about. They kill everyone who disagrees with them, including Muslims. Who do you think they are targeting and killing in Iraq? > Aristo writes: > > In the movie Syriana, they beautifully show how an > Arab terrorist lures and convinces 2 young > unemployed illegal Pakistani immigrants in > Iran (or Syria) to become suicide bombers, using > fundamentalist ideologies. Unemployment and poverty > are certainly contributive factors if not the root > cause. > Mario responds: > Syriana was a movie, Aristo. Sheesh! About as credible as The DaVinci Code. Any resemblance with real life was a coincidence, man. There are millions of unemployed and poor, even in Pakistan, who have no intentions of killing anyone, let alone themselves. Have you noticed that the terrorist leaders always send others to commit suicide? > Aristo writes: > > But the ones who do say it, are the ones who > foment trouble. And all they are doing is > professing their first moral code. > Mario responds: > Why would simply professing a personal belief result in conflict, unless it is intrusively projected or forced on to someone else, which would violate other parts of any rock solid moral code. > Aristo writes: > > I only feel this way because my path to > Irreligiousness was quite natural with more > knowledge I acquired, without any particular event > or person to ascribe it to. I admit, this does > sound chauvinistic, but I reiterate that these are > only my personal feelings. > Mario responds: > With all due respect, it not only sounds chauvinistic it also sounds self-absorbed, self-serving and illustrative of extreme hubris. It also sounds familiar - I seem to recall some of your fellow atheists on Goanet saying or insinuating something very similar. But I reiterate that these are only my personal opinions, expressed only when others attack my beliefs. Believe me, I have atheist friends who do not get in my face on a daily basis with how smart they are with their atheistic discoveries. They respect me and vice versa. > Aristo writes: > > True, nothing in the past worked but was this gross > loss of life justifiable? What happens to Mahatma > Gandhi's tenets of non-violence that you so admire > everytime you walk into your church? And, no I am > certainly no sympathiser of Saddam Hussain. But I > do believe things could have been done differently, > and might have been so if Clinton was still around. > Mario responds: > The loss of life you speak of is hardly gross when compared with previous major conflicts and liberations by force. Most of the casualties are being caused by the Islamo-fascist animals targeting and killing innocent civilians in an attempt to deny them freedom and democracy. > Basically, such an action is a judgement call. Americans took 200,000 enemy lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki but stopped a 4 to 6 year war in 4 days as a result and saved an estimated million other lives. Americans fought a deadly revolutionary war to oust a colonial superpower. Americans fought and died to save other people in Europe in WW-II. The American armed forces are comprised of volunteers, many of whom re-enlist when their term ends. I have met some of them, who believe in their mission, even at the risk of their own lives. > The American army's motto is "No better friend, no worse enemy." > In my opinion Mahatma Gandhi shrewdly used his unique tactic of civil disobedience against a civilized foe and would not have used the same tactics against the Nazis, Fascists, Imperialists or Communists who would have all gladly blown him to bits and those around him to kingdom come without losing any sleep. > Aristo, your knowledge in this area is such that I don't know where to start, but I'll try. The Islamo-fascist terrorists are our [America's] mortal enemies because of our non-negotiable guarantee of Israel's survival. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the US in 1998 at the height of Bill Clinton's appeasement oriented administration. Osama Bin Laden was emboldened, not placated, by Clinton's refusal to respond to all the attacks on US interests throughout the 90's [New York, Uganda, Tanzania, Somalia, Saudi Arabia and Yemen] Because of Bill Clinton's perfidy Osama Bin Laden developed the belief that his Al Qaeda was a "strong horse" and the US was a "weak horse" - his words - too weak willed to respond to his forces. Clinton's role in emboldening Al Qaeda led directly to 9/11, in my opinion. In the meantime, in the USA, Clinton banned the FBI and the CIA from communicating with each other, which led to the intelligence failures that allowed 9/11 to take place. So much for Bill Clinton. > On the other hand, Clinton demanded and signed The Iraq Liberation Act in 1998 which was based on Iraq's WMD's and the concern that he would provide these to Al Qaeda with whom he had growing ties. Yet, the left wingers with their Bush-complex try to obfuscate this fact and hope no one will notice. I hope you are aware that Iraq had harbored terrorists like Abu Nidal, Abu Abbas and Al Zarkawi and helped train Al Qaeda subsidiary Ansar Al Sunna at a training camp called Salman Pak. Unfortunately, Clinton's whole history was of talking big and not doing anything, except when it came to the babes. > Fortunately, Loverboy Clinton had been replaced by the Cowboy Bush by the time 9/11 came around, and not by the cartoon character Al Gore. > Aristo writes: > > While you may argue that a few lives need to be > lost for the greater good and safety of future > generations, what would you say if your son or > daughter was one of these "martyrs"? I am sure you > would not say they died for a good cause. > Mario responds: > How are you so sure since you don't know me? Sounds like many of your conclusions. Incidentally, you would be wrong. I believe in Patrick Henry's "Give me liberty, or give me death." Apparently, you believe in "Please, please, please let me live at any cost. I have 4 cheeks at your disposal:-))". You and I live on different planets. > Aristo writes: > > Especially when there are principally right (and > comparably less effective) ways of going about > these kinds of situations. > Mario responds: > After 12 years of trying and 17 violated UN resolutions and failed economic sanctions, we believed there was no other way other than regime change by force. The UN agreed, since the 17th, UN 1441 was passed unanimously, regardless of all the revisionism. If you don't believe me look it up. In summary, Iraq was told, disarm, disclose what happened to the WMDs or face serious consequences. Previously only economic sanctions had been threatened. > Your mind is functioning in a pre-9/11 world. After 9/11, where the difference was SUICIDE attackers, plus the possibility that they could get their hands on WMDs from a terrorist enabler, no respectable world leader could take a chance any more. Besides, Osama preemptively declared war on the US in 1998. What do you expect us to do? Be "proportionate"??? > Aristo writes: > > The law seeks to protect the innocent even at the > cost of freeing the guilty, but NOT convict the > guilty at the cost of convicting the innocent. > Reasonable doubt, don't they call that, Mario? > Mario responds: > You are confusing domestic legal principles with international terrorism and geopolitics where different rules apply. The US-led action was authorized by UN resolition 1441. If Saddam was as innocent as you imply, he could have saved himself by disarming and disclosing what had happened to his WMDs. Why would he risk losing his cushy dictatorship, rape rooms and torture chambers just because of a simple disclosure of information, after killing hundreds of thousands of his own people in order to hold on to it previously? > Aristo writes: > > Iraq came into the picture only after 9/11, under > the "Axis of Evil" campaign, with the convenient > excuse of harbouring Al-Quaeda extremists. > Mario responds: > This is patently false. Iraq was in this picture since 1991 after Saddam signed a UN agreement to disarm and diclose what had happened to his WMDs. With all due respect, you write these lengthy posts that sound like you know what you're talking about but are so lacking in so many basic facts, which is pretty amazing. > Aristo writes: > > Reason #2 refers to the popular theory of the > Republican party (or US as a whole) conspiring > an "Oil War", which simply because you refute it, > does not make it any less of a theory, especially > since you seem to exhibit an American bias and > sycophancy. > Mario responds: > Finally, the "oil-card". I think my sychophancy, based on facts, is in far better intellectual shape than your incredible ignorance of so many key facts, without a clue that you don't have a clue. > Can you explain, if this is an "oil war", why the US left the middle-east and went home in 1991 after being in control of the bulk of middle-east oil? I hope you know what happened in 1991. > Can you explain, nay, do you even know, that it is Iraq that is the beneficiary of their own oil, and the US has no economic control over it, and is only providing security? > I look forward to your explanations. > Aristo writes: > > Again, I would like to reiterate that I remain non- > committal as to which was the real root cause. > Mario observes: > You keep saying that you are non-commital, then make the most incredibly biased comments as shown above. > Aristo writes: > > I am not denying the fact that they were fought on > fanatical grounds, but they could just have easily > be fueled by individuals motivated by greed. If you > do your research you will find that materialism > played an important role, if not THE most > important. But its just my thought, which may be > far from the truth. > Mario responds: > After all the twisting and turning like "not denying", "could just as easily", "If you do your research", "but it's just my thought" yada, yada, yada, I think we can safely conclude that it is quite "far from the truth." > Aristo writes: > > In today's world of plural and "cafeteria" > identities, not all communists are atheists and > vice-versa. I personally know a number of very > devout Christian Communists. Mario, it is such > grouping of identities that I find bigoted > Mario responds: > The only reason communism, the most aggressive, deadly and destructive philosophy prior to Islamic fundamentalism, got into this discussion is because of the attacks on religion by some of your friends trying to paint atheism as God's gift to humanity [:-))] yet the central tenet of this heinous philosophy is atheism. "Cafeteria" people do not reject central tenets of their faith and still belong to the club. > A Christian as a Communist is a contradiction in terms - not possible, by definition. The closest a Christian would come is to be a socialist. There is nothing "bigoted" about grouping of identities as long as it is based on the truth? If the shoe does not fit no one will force you to wear it, except the communists and Islamo-fascists:-)) > After attacking religious moral codes you have some nerve even mentioning "bigotry". >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
