Readers’ Responses to Our Question (86)

MikeB :

"For example, whether you are pro Bush or not, ask yourself, has the overwhelming public not already expressed their desire to exit Iraq immediately and unconditionally? The answer is "yes". Eventually, someone will be elected that will do just that."

Mike : While I always enjoy reading your writings here I am a firm believer that "yes" eventually somone will be elcted that will withdraw all the US troops and personnel from the Iraqi cities and suburbs when the last drop of Iraqis oil is extracted and eventually close and abandon the miliatary bases completely in Iraq and the rest of the gulf region when the last drop of oil in the region is extracted.

MikeB :

"For example, whether you are pro Bush or not, ask yourself, has the overwhelming public not already expressed their desire to exit Iraq immediately and unconditionally? The answer is "yes". Eventually, someone will be elected that will do just that."

Mike : While I always enjoy reading your writings here I am a firm believer that "yes" eventually somone will be elcted that will withdraw all the US troops and personnel from the Iraqi cities and suburbs when the last drop of Iraqis oil is extracted and eventually close and abandon the miliatary bases completely in Iraq and the rest of the gulf region when the last drop of oil in the region is extracted.

MikeB :

"For example, whether you are pro Bush or not, ask yourself, has the overwhelming public not already expressed their desire to exit Iraq immediately and unconditionally? The answer is "yes". Eventually, someone will be elected that will do just that."

Mike : While I always enjoy reading your writings here I am a firm believer that "yes" eventually somone will be elcted that will withdraw all the US troops and personnel from the Iraqi cities and suburbs when the last drop of Iraqis oil is extracted and eventually close and abandon the miliatary bases completely in Iraq and the rest of the gulf region when the last drop of oil in the region is extracted.

MikeB :

"For example, whether you are pro Bush or not, ask yourself, has the overwhelming public not already expressed their desire to exit Iraq immediately and unconditionally? The answer is "yes". Eventually, someone will be elected that will do just that."

Mike : While I always enjoy reading your writings here I am a firm believer that "yes" eventually somone will be elcted that will withdraw all the US troops and personnel from the Iraqi cities and suburbs when the last drop of Iraqis oil is extracted and eventually close and abandon the miliatary bases completely in Iraq and the rest of the gulf region when the last drop of oil in the region is extracted.

Dear Friends:

Negotiate with the terrorists, with their fingers crossed behind their backs, a knife in their hand, a bomb on the chest and in their car!

Are you out of your mind?

NO. No. Na. NO. NO. Says mommie to the cild repeatedly to not confuse and not lead a child to touch that which is harmful.

Have you forgotten my children?

Come unto the Lord.

Satan is not there.

Seriously! Pray. A vision of Mary and Baby Jesus. An older Mary holding the eucarist toward the Lord. Life everlasting. Trust God. Not the enemy that is at your feet.
Sharon Marie Walker.

Negotiating with terrorists who do not respect any kind of democratic or human laws is always a very big danger.

Of course, everybody should be relieved of the return of the last 21 hostages, but we must not forget that 2 hostages were murdered atrociously.

Terrorists, who kill without any human sentiments helpless civilians, will have no problem in repeating kidnappings to enhance their finances and prove that they are powerful.

As for the South Koreans missionaries, they are responsible of this awful mess, as they should have heeded their authorities advice not to go to Afghanistan, where their presence was not needed.

From "The Australian", today: "Karzai to negotiate with Taliban" (www.theaustralian.news.com.au)

"THE Taliban said today it was ready for talks with the Afghan Government after President Hamid Karzai offered negotiations in a bid to end the rebels' nearly six-year bloody insurgency. Mr Karzai made the offer yesterday, with the insurgency spiralling to its highest level this year, saying peace could not be achieved without dialogue.

"For the sake of national interests ... we are fully ready for talks with the Government," senior Taliban spokesman Yousuf Ahmadi said. "Whenever the Government formally asks for negotiations, we are ready," he said.

Ahmadi said it was not clear if Mr Karzai's offer was genuine. "Our understanding is the Government, which terms the Taliban as terrorists, would not ask for negotiations," he said.

Mr Karzai ... denied yesterday that "formal negotiations" were under way with the militants but said he was ready to start such dialogue if he could find the "address for the Taliban."

Ahmadi said: "If they want our address - we're among the people. If they're honest for talks, we're ready for it."

Can readers please provide Mr. Karzai with some help towards finding that elusive address?...

by no means countries should negotiate with terrorists and fall to thier demands..the more we negotiate the more confident and strong they become and they will get more justification for what they do and what they did for the decades..on the process more and more organisations claiming to be islam protectors will flourish in each and every part of the world..i think it's not only a matter of negotiation and giving to their demands.. it furher goes to giving little or no media attention to their savagery actions..media is what they want more than anything if we don't give media coverage for thier killings and bombing and portrait them as heroes then they will by themselves start to rethink ..good deeds should be broadcast and given much attention than a killing of in a downtown Baghdad.....NO NEGOTIATION AND ATTENTION FOR TERRORISTS

by no means countries should negotiate with terrorists and fall to thier demands..the more we negotiate the more confident and strong they become and they will get more justification for what they do and what they did for the decades..on the process more and more organisations claiming to be islam protectors will flourish in each and every part of the world..i think it's not only a matter of negotiation and giving to their demands.. it furher goes to giving little or no media attention to their savagery actions..media is what they want more than anything if we don't give media coverage for thier killings and bombing and portrait them as heroes then they will by themselves start to rethink ..good deeds should be broadcast and given much attention than a killing of in a downtown Baghdad.....NO NEGOTIATION AND ATTENTION FOR TERRORISTS

by no means countries should negotiate with terrorists and fall to thier demands..the more we negotiate the more confident and strong they become and they will get more justification for what they do and what they did for the decades..on the process more and more organisations claiming to be islam protectors will flourish in each and every part of the world..i think it's not only a matter of negotiation and giving to their demands.. it furher goes to giving little or no media attention to their savagery actions..media is what they want more than anything if we don't give media coverage for thier killings and bombing and portrait them as heroes then they will by themselves start to rethink ..good deeds should be broadcast and given much attention than a killing of in a downtown Baghdad.....NO NEGOTIATION AND ATTENTION FOR TERRORISTS

Canadian / Pakistani Khalid Q Awan Facing Unjustice .
Khalid Q Awan detainee is now facing different preplanned, Fabricated charges in NewYork USA during his jail period,Khalid Awan is now looking forward your special attention and help towards this case for saving his innocent life .Khalid Q Awan detainee himself disagree with the charges imposed on him by the FBI, The charges are not related with him by all means. How can be possible a person in jail /custody since 9/11 now become terrorist while he proved not guilty in the same court in the past. So he is looking forward your help to get the justice and Clear and fair investigation in these imposed fabricated charges. It is possible with the involvement of the organizations like your’s, so that the innocent will come back to his normal life This is the mission of the human rights commission that innocents to be protected in all over the world from injustice ,and illegal Custody.
As by the press reports and by governments officials, In the court room only FBI representatives and some press reporters were present and no one else was there to see what is going over.
Help requested from high officials in Canada, U.S.A, and UNO & also from the NGOS who work for the human rights in all over the world.
Once again the request for find out the truth and reality in the above case.
With best wishes and regards
The whole family of Khalid Q Awan from Canada and pakistan.
Dear Sir / Madam
I am 46 years old, Canadian citizen and native of Pakistan (Muslim). I was an immigration consultant in Canada and as part of my business , I had an office in New York.
During 2001 immediately after the Sept 11, event the US govt arrested me on Oct 25, 2001 on anonymous call, as a material witness for the 9/11 world trade centre terrorist attack. A detail investigation by the FBI and USA Naval intelligence dept was conducted and I was cleared, but even then govt put me in front of Grand jury , and I was cleared and the case was dismissed by the Grand jury of the US Federal Court .
Approximately after 2 weeks , before I was released from custody the US Govt imposed a new charges of Fraud and money laundering , under the advice of my attorney , I pleaded guilty and I was sentenced to prison for five years (which was four years more, what I pleaded). In which I had already spent 3 years in Detention jail, during the case , I had about 14 months left to finishing my sentence ,(instead of appealing, I preferred to applied for Treaty Transfer to Canada, because if the case is in the appeal, defendant is not eligible for transfer back to his home country).
While at prison, I learned from the case manager Miss Mause, that my citizen was incorrect in the FBOP’s (Federal Bureau of Prison) computer system as Pakistani instead of Canadian.
Its important to note , that all of my Canadian identifications (passport , citizenship card , S.I.N , Health card Driving license etc) were under FBI’s possession, with a great deal of concern, I wrote a letter to the Canadian Consulate in Buffalo, N.Y to notify such mistake and requested them to fix this problem. This is especially important for Treaty Transfer back to Canada.
The Canadian Consulate official sent a letter to the jail to correct my citizenship status, however FBOP ignored the request and the citizenship status in the FBOP computer still reflect Pakistani instead of Canadian (Note:- I would be required to obtain visa to visit Pakistan) .In contrast , the deportation letter received from US Immigration dept, Contained the correct citizenship status of Canada.
At the hindsight, I believe that the FBOP intentionally left the citizenship as Pakistani, so that they could retained me at their facility, while the govt is planning to file new charges against me 3rd time.
Approximately six weeks before my released date on Jan 30 ,2006 I was notified by the FBOP that I was being transferred from Ellenwood , PA to MDC (Metropolitan Detention Centre) in Brooklyn N.Y, it was explained to me, that the purpose of this transfer was in preparation for deportation back to Canada, (after few days, I signed the immigration deportation papers, with my consular Miss Chen).
But immediately after my arriving to MDC Brooklyn, I discovered during a phone call with my family in Montreal, that RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) official had contacted my sister and brother-in-law regarding the whereabouts of my wife and my current situation, there was no explanation given by the RCMP official to the purpose of the call and he left his phone number and asked my wife to call him back immediately, my wife called the RCMP official and left messages in his voice mail. Then the official contacted my brother-in-law again and had asked him to tell my wife not to call again, because there is nothing good nor anything bad.
Meanwhile the AUSA ( United States Attorney) office Investigator and FBI brought me to their office to be interrogated without an attorney present, even AUSA told in the court to the judge on March 16, 2006 that he arranged attorney for me before my arrival from Ellenwood PA to MDC Brooklyn, N.Y, on Transcript; page 11, Transcript line No: 14 to 23.
AUSA:- He (Khalid Awan) was writ in the cause of a grand jury investigation. He clearly had criminal exposure. So to protect his interest I made an application to the duty magistrate for counsel to be appointed.
THE COURT:- Initially he was brought here by a Court to testify before the grand jury?
AUSA:- That is correct, Your Honour.

THE COURT:- When he arrived here, you made arrangements for an attorney to be pointed to request him?
AUSA:- Yes, Your Honour.
This interrogation started with the AUSA office Investigator stating that my family will be arrested in Canada if I refused to answer their questions.
At this point I am certain that my family is in great danger for reasons that I am not aware of. I was scared that my family would be harassed by these people along with the Canadian RCMP official, I strongly believe that the RCMP is doing this intentionally in collaboration with FBI official to further harass me to admit charges, that I never committed.
Without knowledge of the reasons why the Canadian RCMP agency was involved. I was surprised that RCMP official directly approached my family instead of me without proper explanation, and its also shocked for me, that how RCMP got the phone number of my family (because before my arrest, I don’t have any single record in any police dept, of any country).
I was intimated and pushed to the edge during this interrogation, I was determined to provide anything these USA officials wanted to make them happy even is the questions made no sense, because I want them to stop the harassment to my family.
On March 15, 2006 I completed the term of my imprisonment and was to be released from American Custody and deported back to Canada. Before that I was arrested again 3rd time, and charged with providing “material support to a foreign terrorist” and money laundering (to a organization and person, which are not designated by the USA govt and belongs to Sikh religion).
These charges emerged while I was still in prison and without the capability of providing any type of support. It was even difficult for me to get enough financial assistance to pay legal fees. I could not have provided any material support while I was in prison for five years and I could not launder any money because I did not have any.
AUSA filed three counts of indictment against me.
Conspiracy to provide material support.
Provide a material support to the foreign terrorist.
Money laundering to support terrorism.
(Please note, that in my previous case govt charged me for money laundering and fraud from Jan 1999 to 2002 and “its mentioned in the plea-agreement by the AUSA that no further money laundering charges will be brought against defendant from Jan 1999 to April 2002” even then govt indict me for money laundering from 1998 to Nov 2001 (Which is double Jeopardy and violation of 5th Amendment of U.S Constitution.)
In Oct 2006, during pre-trial hearing on the motion’s filed by my attorney the first two counts of my indictment were dismissed by the judge, stating that there is a lack of facts and figures.
After two weeks AUSA re-indicted me again. I believe this is a desperate act of the AUSA to cover up a huge embarrassment . Further this hastily drawn indictment was full of factual errors and creative legal theories.
Since I was first arrested by the American govt, I believe that I have been singled out, isolated and discriminated against primarily because of my race and religion, in addition to the fact that I don’t know any information that the American govt is trying to pressure out of me.
I do not understand the American laws and this is what led to my pleading guilty in the first case. I have difficulty understanding the new charges also.
I have been charged under, section 2339(a) of Title 18 of the United States code, which makes it illegal to provide material support to a foreign terrorist.
Please understand, I am not a terrorist, I do not know any terrorist and I have had no connections with or to any known or unknown terrorist. I have been incarcerated for last 5 years and I had no money to provide or launder.
The law enforcement have in America is pressuring me to provide information to them that I really do not have or know. I am a Canadian Citizen and nearly all of my family is in Canada, including my wife and kids. I don’t know any information to tell them to help their investigation.
Because of this , I am being treated unfairly and my rights under the American constitution are being violated. I am being held here in further detention against my will for crimes which I could have never committed, because I was in prison.
I believe, that I am a victim of the discrimination that was outlined in the July 3, 2006 issue of Time magazine (Page 29, column 3). In this article section 2339(a) & (b) are discussed and criticized “as most suspects are charged under these two sections. However, the justice dept here in America admits that of the more than 218 guilty pleas that it has obtained, most are for minor investigation issues that are uncovered deeding the course of their terrorism investigation. This suggest, according to the article that the Attorney General’s office have is not concerned about the rights or fairness or the manner in which it achieves convictions for the people they arrest. Furthermore, criticizes have noted that one of the patterns to emerge from these domestic prosecutions is that suspect seen too incompetent to carry out the deeds they are accused of. The Deputy Attorney General acknowledges that the Dept of Justice’s goal is “ preventions through prosecution’s” and this is done with no regard for an individual’s rights.
I agree that these guilty of terrorism should be prosecuted . But as the above mentioned article suggest , innocent people should not be targeted because of their race or religion.
I am not a terrorist and I should not be targeted and treated unfairly and unjustly.
I need your assistance desperately in my case, as I believe that I am being treated unjustly here. I would like to send you my attorney’s contact information and provide you with legal documents related to my case, so that you may become more familiar with my situation.
Please also note, that I appeared in the court , for no guilty of my 2nd superseding indictment on Aug 02, 2006 and on Aug 03, 2006 FBOP officials placed me in the SHU (Segregation Housing Unit) out of these months, I placed in the SHU isolation from Aug 03, 2006 to March 6, 2007 for unknown “Pending Investigation” in these 215 days of my segregation and isolation, I don’t have a single phone call access to my family, no legal calls to my attorney and Canadian Council, my legal mail opened in my absence, no medical treatment for my injured shoulder (even I went for hunger strike for 3 and half day) I harassed by the various jail officials and lot of other problems too which already been submitted in the attention of the FBOP higher authorities, but no action taken on them, after writing the court, instead of receiving the response or any action on my complaints, jail officials removed /moved me from MDC federal facility to Nassau County Jail .
My suffering has gone on for far too long, and I need your help to bring my suffering to an end. I want to return home to my family, because my imprisonment was injustice and will remain a great injustice forever.
May God bless you and be with you in your efforts to champion the cause of human rights, and the suffering of innocent prisoners and restore hope, faith and love to peoples all over the world.
Sincerely,
KHALID AWAN
FBOP NO. 50959-054
The court will be on 12 September 2007.
http://www.bloglines.com/search?q=khalid+awan&ql=en&s=f&pop=l&news=m
http://www.nysun.com/article/37251

AMviennaVA : "Zoltan @September 7, 2007 3:52 AM: Last year's events were NOT a religious war. [...] I saw no 'Christian' going to war in Christ's name, nor any Israeli in the name of 'God' "

About the Israeli, that's a bold statement, when an all-jew military fights under a flag with David's star. And isn't your president finishing all his talks with "God bless America" ? Accusing some poor bombed cave-men of fundamentalism with such leaders of yours is dishonest. At best.

Christians kill muslims in the name of democracy while muslims kill christians in the name of Allah, and jews kill muslims because of "terrorism". And every-body calling the others "zealous bigots". A great world we're all living in.

MikeB, about Islam and feminists, your point is well made. Which actually is even more a pity for the Iraqi war that destroyed the most tolerant regime in the region.

Kidnaping is a criminal act and as such it should be confronted in accordance with established procedures. Here is an example we are all familiar with: Couple of guys try to rob a bank, police is notified; they surround the bank; robbers are still in the bank and we have a hostage situation. By the book, trained police negotiators engage the criminals to get enough information to put together a rescue plan. Sharpshooters get into position ready to kill the robbers as the plan requires it. Hostage takers are promised everything that can delay the execution of the hostages and are deceived into a position that makes it possible to take them out! ..... you get the point.

Why the Talleban situation in Afghanistan is any different? There is no need to try to define terrorism here or distinguish it with freedom fighter persona. That’s another story!!! Here, they kidnaped civilians for ransom, it makes them criminals. Authorities (Afghan or US led forces in this situation) should talk to them with the single goal of deceiving them into a position in which they can be attacked and hostages freed. There should be no intention to give them anything or to let them escape (like the bank robbery situation). There needs to be a established procedure followed by the international community in these situations. Sometimes they will succeed and sometimes they will fail but the alterative which is feeding the criminals to save innocent people will only delay the inevitable. More innocent people will be taken as hostages and will die because the action becomes profitable. No government has the right to engage in such a trade.

Zoltan, actually most of those "christians" and their brats stayed home, safe in college or off on missions, or "doing" business deals for daddy - like Romney's kids. These cowards prized their skin too much to actually fight in Iraq or Afghanistan, their time too valuable to even enlist in some branch of the military. That has been done by the children of working class families, mostly political, religious, and social moderates, not the nut cases from the right.

And, to address the whole notion of tolerance, you can speak your mind about feminism or politicial or corporate corruption anywhere in the West without fear of anything more than being placed in some FBI database. Try that in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait or Syria or Iran or Turkey or parts of Lebannon or Iraq or Afghanistan and you would end up in prison at the very least. If some lank feminist popped up in Saudi Arabia blathering about equal rights can you even imagine what would happen to them? I'd love to ship Victoria off to there for a year, that would cure her of her silly notions about Islam and tolerance PDQ. Same for for the other apologists here. It may not be political corect to say t, but Islam is not a tolerant religion nor cultural movement and never has been.

Zoltan @September 7, 2007 3:52 AM: Last year's events were NOT a religious war. Yes, there are always some nuts who will try to argue that 'God' wants this or that. That is irrelevant. I saw no 'Christian' going to war in Christ's name, nor any Israeli in the name of 'God', nor any Muslim for that matter. Instead it was a political war along tribal (4 of them actually - 2 on the 'Muslim' side) lines.

Sobre nuestra republica

Mi nombre es Henry Giraldo, soy de San Carlos Antioquia; uno de los pueblos más violentos de Colombia. Yo nací y crecí en la crudeza de la guerra colombiana. A la edad de seis vi el primer asesinado; su cabeza con huecos de bala emanaba sangre, sangre que vi la Madre Tierra recibir generosamente. Progresivamente, como todos saben, fueron aumentando las masacres. La mayoría de los que asistieron conmigo a la primaria, fueron asesinados. Para mi la realidad colombiana es básica: vivimos en la barbarie.
En las comunidades existen conspiraciones, por parte de los grupos criminales. La gente es asesinada y solo quedan los rumores. En Colombia ya no podemos hablar de la muerte de una manera objetiva, nos rodea, pero no podemos entenderla ni enfrentarla. El desconcierto y el negativismo son derivados normales de nuestra guerra interna.
Desde mi punto de vista, la guerra perpetua, en si misma, no es el problema. Dicha guerra es uno de los síntomas de nuestra Democracia Fallida. Colombia carece de Independencia y Participación Ciudadana en los asuntos gubernamentales. Porque carecemos de la facultad para analizar y juzgar las acciones del gobierno por nuestra propia cuenta; somos fácilmente manipulados por grupos armados y asta por nuestro gobierno.
A los colombianos, especialmente a los campesinos como yo, no se nos educa sobre lo que significa ser parte de un Estado. Esperamos que nuestro gobierno funcione bien sin nuestro apoyo, y cuando fracasa lo condenamos. Hemos establecido la doble moral en nuestra relación con el gobierno; ya que no nos consideramos responsables por su fracaso. La doble moral existe, tanto en la corrupción política, como en el anhelo de un proceso de paz con grupos criminales.
Es mi posición: Que solo un gobierno confundido y sin moral política (la cual solo se deriva del apoyo ciudadano) busca un proceso de paz con un grupo criminal. Lo primero que hacemos con pedir la “negociación de paz” con un grupo criminal, es decidir que su guerra contra el pueblo colombiano tiene legitimidad. La única manera de racionalizar esta decisión es el reconocer dicho grupo como banda político-armada y no simplemente criminal. Recordemos también que, parte de la “negociación de paz” es la reinserción a la vida civil, lo cual incluye perdón de los actos criminales. Con este ultimo paso, los ciudadanos (y no solo el gobierno) le otorgamos legitimidad moral a los actos criminales.
La Paz, la Justicia y un Gobierno Saludable, son ideales que se nutren mutuamente; estos no se logran con el echo de perdonar miles de actos criminales, por el contrario, dicha negociación y perdón debilita la legitimidad de nuestro gobierno. ¿En que tipo de país se da el lujo la guerrilla de asesinar a 11 parlamentarios, y al mismo tiempo de escuchar los clamores de civiles pidiendo un proceso de paz? La paz no es algo que se negocia, la paz tiene que ser construida por los ciudadanos y el gobierno tiene que ser fuerte para velar y mantener dicha paz.
Deseo que en el desespero por “negociar la paz,” no olvidemos nuestra facultad de razonamiento. Nuestro compromiso como colombianos esta memorializado en nuestra Constitución Política. La estricta vigilancia de los actos gubernamentales, la exigencia de reformas políticas y el castigo a la corrupción política, son responsabilidades ciudadanas; y no pertenecen a grupos criminales.
Finalmente, quiero ofrecer una solución, sobre la cual los colombianos podemos comenzar a trabajar inmediatamente:
Los colombianos tenemos la responsabilidad (asumiendo que queremos existir como país-y libres) de asumir de una manera realista los Poderes y Debilidades del gobierno. En mi opinión, la guerrilla, los paramilitares y la corrupción política, no son el problema, solo son síntomas. El problema está en la manera en que asumimos nuestra colombianidad. ¿Qué significa ser colombiano? ¿Qué beneficios conlleva el ser colombiano? ¿Qué responsabilidades implica el ser colombiano? ¿Cuáles son los elementos que conllevan a la destrucción de una república? Éstas preguntas necesitan ser adecuadamente debatidas en Colombia; y necesitan ser reflejadas en nuestro sistema educativo desde la primaria.
Muchas Gracias por su atención,
Henry Giraldo

JRLR

your comments are by-and-large complete nonsense. "We must get out of this world of scholastic nuance..."

When dealing with any issue of foreign policy (a relatively new entity, as the world was only thrust into its own backyard a few generations ago), the scholastic nuance is the staus quo. States exist to serve their own self-interests, and to protect either the people (hopefully), or the leadership (see: DPRK). That troublesome scholastic nuance is what gets the international community to cooperate, because, at the end of the day, countries are in economic and strategic competition with one another.

Now, to the actual matter at hand - a proper state, South Korea, negotiated the release with a non-state actor, the Taliban. What happened? It was in South Korea's interest to have their 20+ citizens return unharmed. The Taliban had for more to gain: 1.) fear - when a ruling militia/autocratic entity seeks to lay claim (or to reclaim as the case may be) to some sort of authority, fear is a great demotivator for the masses; 2.) money - I have my doubts the South Korean missionaries were released for free; 3.) political gains - by negotiating with the Taliban, South Korea completely ignored the actual, semi-legitimate government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. The Taliban's foremost interest is control of Afghanistan (another word would be autonomy), and getting a democracy like South Korea to negotiate directly with it really says something to the people of Afghanistan about who runs the country.

In a broader philosophical sense, the idea of "negotiating" with a kidnapper or terrorist or whatever is all well and good - brace yourself for a scholastic nuance!! - but actually giving in to the malfeasants' demands is a wholly different story. If the Taliban gained legitimacy, money, influence, notoriety, local acclaim, etc from this act, and South Korea's subsequent actions, I would have to say the case is made as to why it is not prudent to cave in to the demands of the proprietors of such acts.

The only lesson that the Taliban could learn here is that this works, unequivocally.

The fact is, though, that their country was invaded, and is currently a state of psuedo-occupation. I am not sure that anyone reading these boards would not resort to the same action. It's called "blowback". GO RON PAUL!

JRLR

your comments are by-and-large complete nonsense. "We must get out of this world of scholastic nuance..."

When dealing with any issue of foreign policy (a relatively new entity, as the world was only thrust into its own backyard a few generations ago), the scholastic nuance is the staus quo. States exist to serve their own self-interests, and to protect either the people (hopefully), or the leadership (see: DPRK). That troublesome scholastic nuance is what gets the international community to cooperate, because, at the end of the day, countries are in economic and strategic competition with one another.

Now, to the actual matter at hand - a proper state, South Korea, negotiated the release with a non-state actor, the Taliban. What happened? It was in South Korea's interest to have their 20+ citizens return unharmed. The Taliban had for more to gain: 1.) fear - when a ruling militia/autocratic entity seeks to lay claim (or to reclaim as the case may be) to some sort of authority, fear is a great demotivator for the masses; 2.) money - I have my doubts the South Korean missionaries were released for free; 3.) political gains - by negotiating with the Taliban, South Korea completely ignored the actual, semi-legitimate government of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. The Taliban's foremost interest is control of Afghanistan (another word would be autonomy), and getting a democracy like South Korea to negotiate directly with it really says something to the people of Afghanistan about who runs the country.

In a broader philosophical sense, the idea of "negotiating" with a kidnapper or terrorist or whatever is all well and good - brace yourself for a scholastic nuance!! - but actually giving in to the malfeasants' demands is a wholly different story. If the Taliban gained legitimacy, money, influence, notoriety, local acclaim, etc from this act, and South Korea's subsequent actions, I would have to say the case is made as to why it is not prudent to cave in to the demands of the proprietors of such acts.

The only lesson that the Taliban could learn here is that this works, unequivocally.

The fact is, though, that their country was invaded, and is currently a state of psuedo-occupation. I am not sure that anyone reading these boards would not resort to the same action. It's called "blowback". GO RON PAUL!

There are a few big problems with the suggestion that it will "get our foot in the door" to talk to terror groups. The first problem is that such groups have a policy of lying to us to get what they want; the second problem is that it sends a message to other groups that violence pays; the third problem is that it gives the group free publicity and thereby encourages more acts of terror; etc.

There are a few big problems with the suggestion that it will "get our foot in the door" to talk to terror groups. The first problem is that such groups have a policy of lying to us to get what they want; the second problem is that it sends a message to other groups that violence pays; the third problem is that it gives the group free publicity and thereby encourages more acts of terror; etc.

Very nice, we bled for the South Koreans in one war, have helped defend them for the last 50 years. Now we ask them to bleed for us and they withdraw a mere 200 troops.

We should withdraw all of ours from South Korea.

I am so glad you "reporters" aren't running countries

This latest action tells the terrorists to get what they want they must resort to acts of violence

This is not how civilized society works

Can we get back to discussing what might work against terrorism, instead of re-airing a lot of dirty laundry? All this playground-level "he started it" tripe is precisely why we're in this mess, why, for example, Iraelis and Palestinians continue to die. I decided long ago that I will support whoever decides to grow up first; until then, a pox on both their houses.

As to that original argument--should we negotiate with terrorists, remember that?--I only have one question, to which I really don't know the answer: What, if anything, has worked against other forms of organized crime?

I read this incredibly uniformed commentary by MikeB and had to respond:

"Our own "patriots" murdered loyalists in their homes, killed their wives and children, and took their property, and fought against all norms of warfare. (At the time, opposing armies lined up about 40 yards apart and simply shot at each other. Our patriots hid behind rocks and trees and hay stacks. They were called "terrorists' by the British and German mercinaries and hung when they were caught as "terrorists".)"

This is all not only incorrect, it is slander. While, yes, loyalists were often treated unfairly, persecuted, and there were even deaths on RARE occasion, claiming that the Patriots purposefully and in a general manner had a mission to kill Loyalist civilian men, women and children is completely untrue.

As far as his Patriot were "fighting against all norms of warfare" assertion, clearly he is completely ignorant of how warfare was conducted in the 18th century in general, and in North America in particular. There was no "rule" against fighting in loose formations and as skirmishers using terrain to their advantage - nearly every European army (including the British) contained a portion of those kinds of troops ("Light Infatry") that was trained to do precisely that.

The next statement: "Our patriots hid behind rocks and trees and hay stacks" displays a level of understanding of the American Revolution that is extrordinarily unenlightened. From nearly the very start of the war, there was an effort made to provide uniforms to the Continental Army, adopt European formations, drill and tactics, and to confront the British in the exactly same way a regular army of the time would have.

His following assetion "They were called "terrorists' by the British and German mercinaries and hung when they were caught as "terrorists".)" is again false. Excutions of Americans by the British (and "Hessians") are nearly non-existent. The few cases where an American was executed for spying are well known - and their act have absolutely nothing in common with what today's terrorists would perpetrate on us. When Americans executed British, again very, very rare, it was for espionoge, not for baser reasons.

I don't have the time or energy to address the below, except to state that it is about as accurate as his depiction of the Revolutionary War.

Duing Sherman's "march to the sea" his troops destroyed all buildinds, all crops and animals, rendering the land barren and condemning tens of thousands of people to death by starvation. The world called this "terrorism" at the time, but we name our public schools after him today and worship President Lincoln who ordered this done (along with imprisoning Congressmen who disagreed with his policies, and actually hanging newspaper writers who criticized him.).

MikeB, how "recent" is recent enough ? Does 2006 fit ?

What about that Libanon war that the integrist Christian Evangelist in the USA, supporting Bush, supported (incl. cluster bombs and delays in a UN resolution) while the integrist Zionist Jews killed one thousand Lebanese, who just happened to be all Muslim ? On one side there were 1000 civilian muslims killed (and around 100 fighters) and on the other side some 50 civilian jews (and around 100 soldiers). And that in the name of a God who supposedly gave a piece of land some thousand years ago (their words).

The "apologists" - your words - will undoubtedly claim that that was a political action. Unrelated to any religion. And the facts that those killing are mostly jews with christian-made weapons while those dying are mostly muslim is only an unfortunate event. Or worse, a proof of "our" superiority.

JRLR,
"That is why, to use your own words, "the question DOES center around negotiating with Afghans IN THE CONTEXT OF A US WAR"." The question that is posed is "Should Countries Negotiate With Terrorists?". This is the context of the specific example of South Korea negotiating with terrorists (Taliban). They question was not how do we bring about world peace. So no I don't think the question centers on the US WAR in Afghanistan necessarily. Obviously there are reasons and a history as to why the South Koreans were in Afghanistan to begin with. With respect to the question posed, it does not matter why they were there. It does matter when you try to end the war and establish peace. Now you may consider acts of terrorism "crumbs". I don't consider barbaric acts of flying planes into buildings insignificant. Especially when these types of acts become part of the larger negotiating strategies used when trying to solve the big picture issues you seem so focused on. You will not achieve a lasting peace so long as terrorism is an acceptable bargaining chip. Negotiating with terrorists makes these acts useful and effective bargaining chips.

Dave, you write: "But the question centers around negotiating with terrorists, not war."

That illustrates what I mean by "we prefer to bury ourselves into scholastic distinctions ad nauseam, rather than take one second to at least begin to consider the whole historical contexts that account for conflicts. That is the best proof we do not want to see those conflicts ever resolved."

Is not recent history part of what you call "reality"? Is it not the case, as recent history has it, that the US is "at war"? Does not the US President claim the US is currently leading a "war on terror"? Is not that war taking place on the Afghan Front, amongst others? Given a war is taking place, are not Afghans fighting the US on that Front? Is it not in that overall context that South Koreans were abducted by Afghans? Is it not against that background that negotiations took place and that the hostages were released?

That is why, to use your own words, "the question DOES center around negotiating with Afghans IN THE CONTEXT OF A US WAR".

In your own words, Dave, "you can close your eyes to it and pretend that it does not exist but at the end of the day, it's the way" it works in Afghanistan, at present... The South Korean episode is only part of a complex conflict that has been going on for more than five years, now; with crucial considerations that date back to many years before the US invasion.

Again, you may want to forget all about the whole loaf of bread, isolate and concentrate exclusively on a few crumbs; you may prefer to micro-conceive and micro-discuss micro issues. However gratifying in the short term, such simplistic methods are nonetheless useless when it comes to solving conflicts and to working seriously towards genuine lasting peace.

To demonize the enemy is infantile: it is one of the most common tricks used by warmongers. It remains one of the first steps towards permanent conflicts and perpetual wars. That is probably the most widespread, the most constantly tactic used by fanatics and by warmongers, on these blogs, to perpetuate the myth of war.

Should I now lay my cards on the table?

Only by negotiating an overall political solution for Afghanistan and the region can there be peace and prosperity in that country. We must call for an open-ended truce now! We need demand negotiations begin under the auspices of the UN, leading to International Accords on Afghanistan without delay, so all foreign troops can leave Afghanistan immediately thereafter.

How many lives will be lost before we get there is an open question. But get there we need and get there we will. The Afghans are in Afghanistan to stay. We are there to leave.

Meanwhile, the way it was phrased and "contextualized" above, the question "Should Countries Negotiate With Terrorists?" is nothing but a red herring.

Charles, you hit the mark! I wrote, "recent", and the apologists (as I exected, mind you) blew it off. Now, I am not a great fan of any organized religion, but modern day Islam has wrought grave harm on the world. There are enclaves of Muslims in the U.S. and in Kurdistan, that practice moderation and acceptance of others. But, that is about it. Almost anywhere else in this world you wish to visit, Islam is intolerant of others and downright dangerous. Christianity underwent a Reformation that moderated it's interactions with the world. Islam needs to undergo something similar.

As for "terrorism", I find that term to be something used by political hack to frighten the bedwetters and soccer moms into dumping all of our personal freedom in exchange for "security". The term "terrorist" is meaningless nonsense and every self respecting person ought to cease using it. Bin Laudin and his ilk are psychotics, religious fanatics, and criminals. I could, and often do, say the same thing of many of our country's political leaders. For example, whether you are pro Bush or not, ask yourself, has the overwhelming public not already expressed their desire to exit Iraq immediately and unconditionally? The answer is "yes". Eventually, someone will be elected that will do just that. Then, all of those young people who die there, will have died in vain, so that Bush can avoid facing that reality. That, to my mind, makes him and those who support him criminal, insane, and very dangerous fanatics.

JRLR,
You call it "scholastic Ifs and Buts", I call it reality. You can close your eyes to it and pretend that it does not exist but at the end of the day, it's the way the world and mankind work.

You say "It is easy to sacrifice other people's lives; much too easy, still, to argue that one should let others die instead of negotiating their release." I submit that you have that backwards. It's incredibly hard to to sacrifice others lives. It's much too easy to negotiate their release, thereby perpetuating the terrorist methods.

"No viable world can ever be erected on permanent conflicts and on perpetual war based exclusively on lies and deception..." Wars based exclusively on lies an deception will not be permanent. Once found out, there will be no support for them. The permanent conflicts have valid reasons for them, some better than others - but valid nonetheless. The world has been viable for thousands of years despite the fact that man has been fighting one another for all of them. But the question centers around negotiating with terrorists, not war. Negotiating with terrorists, which happens all the time despite the rhetoric, contributes to less peace, more war and mankind heading in the opposite direction of where we all want to go. It invites additional conflicts because its use is seen as a legitimate means of the negotiation process, making it conterproductive to spreading peace.

This argument as it concerns the posters here seems to be going back and forth between believing communication is possible with all people no matter how questionable some of the beliefs and actions in the world and those who believe that communication is impossible with in fact a great many people.

The answer is obviously somewhere in the middle. My belief though is if beliefs and actions start taking the form of being able to be considered terrorism from the perspective of open societies, then probably even if conversation is possible between the antagonists the one considered terroristic will have to be the one to modify his views and behavior.

People say one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter, but this is essentially perpetually legitimizing terrorism because postulating an infinity of freedoms which we should be allowed to realize even if we must do so by terrorism.

Generally people in democracies realize such actions must subside. We have democracy and the wayward held to law and order. The question is if there are people that think there are freedoms democracy cannot provide and are willing to resort to terroristic actions to realize those freedoms.

If there is conversation with terrorists it should revolve around these questions of freedoms and to see if democracy can ever provide these freedoms. But if democracy cannot, then democratic society--being the society most capable of realizing freedoms--has no choice but label the "freedom fighters" terrorists.

The people who read and post to the WaPo boards dealing with faith and global issues continue to amuse me. Aside from the more "ahem" sprited arguments from both sides of the aisle, most people try to present their side of the given issue at least logically, if not always persuasively.

My main concern is the ongoing refusal to separate political from religious actions. For example, calling the killing of Jews in WWII a genocide by "Christians" is flat wrong...it was mostly political in nature, though dripping with anti-Semitic thought and actions. Trust me on this...neither Hitler, Goebbels or Mengele considered themselves "Christian." They used the Jews as scapegoats for Germany's destitution, killing them not for their religious convictions, but for their political use. Even a lot of the violence committed in the name of Islam is more of a political act than a religious one...just cloaked in Islamic rhetoric. Politicians, thugs and despots willingly use Islam as their excuse and cloak for the actions they take to gain or maintain power. Religion is only on the veneer on the political actions they take and the ends they hope to achieve.

The biggest difference between Christian and Muslim communities in the recent past seems to be that Western countries don't identify themselves as being only "Christian" and require strict obedience to Christian "laws," unlike the majority of Middle Eastern, African and Asian countries with majority Muslim populations. These countries make it a point to demand the observation of the supremacy of sharia, along with the religious and political degradation of any other religion or splinter Islamic group.

The continual citing of so-called "Christian" atrocities repeatedly ignores that almost all of the examples from recent history were political in nature, and not committed by "Christian" countries or "warriors" in the name of Christ. This hasn't happened for generations except in relatively few cases.

While some will use the old canard that "everything is political," it really should be said that "everything can be MADE political." Religion can be politicized by any person, group or government pushing their religious or secular agendas. The main difference between modern Western governments and Islamic-based governments is that even with the current administration trying to demonstrate otherwise, the West at least makes the attempt to keep religion and politics separate. Making religious thought the dominate factor in politics and public law does a disservice to all people and whatever they chose to worship.

The people who read and post to the WaPo boards dealing with faith and global issues continue to amuse me. Aside from the more "ahem" sprited arguments from both sides of the aisle, most people try to present their side of the given issue at least logically, if not exactly always persuasively.

My main concern is the ongoing refusal to separate political from religious actions. For example, calling the killing of Jews in WWII a genocide by "Christians" is flat wrong...it was mostly political in nature, though dripping with anti-Semitic thought and actions. Trust me on this...neither Hitler, Goebbels or Mengele considered themselves "Christian." They used the Jews as scapegoats for Germany's destitution, killing them not for their religious convictions, but for their political use. Even a lot of the violence committed in the name of Islam is more of a political act than a religious one...just cloaked in Islamic rhetoric. Politicians, thugs and despots willingly use Islam as their excuse and cloak for the actions they take to gain or maintain power. Religion is only on the veneer on the political actions they take and the ends they hope to achieve.

The biggest difference between Christian and Muslim communities in the recent past seems to be that Western countries don't identify themselves as being only "Christian" and require strict obedience to Christian "laws," unlike the majority of Middle Eastern, African and Asian countries with majority Muslim populations. These countries make it a point to demand the observation of the supremacy of sharia, along with the religious and political degradation of any other religion or splinter Islamic group.

The continual citing of so-called "Christian" atrocities repeatedly ignores that almost all of the examples from recent history were political in nature, and not committed by "Christian" countries or "warriors" in the name of Christ. This hasn't happened for generations except in relatively few cases.

While some will use the old canard that "everything is political," it really should be said that "everything can be MADE political." Religion can be politicized by any person, group or government pushing their religious or secular agendas. The main difference between modern Western governments and Islamic-based governments is that even with the current administration trying to demonstrate otherwise, the West at least makes the attempt to keep religion and politics separate. Making religious thought the dominate factor in politics and public law does a disservice to all people and whatever they chose to worship.

Frank Tessel wrote: "Negotiating with terrorists only creates more terrorists and more kidnappings. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish, especially the authors of this destructive piece... Are you on the payroll for Hamas?"

For decades, countries have claimed they never did, never would negotiate with terrorists, with the net result that there are more terrorists with more demands, today, than ever. This would seem to suggest that, to use your own words: "Not negotiating with terrorists only creates more terrorists and more kidnappings. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish..."

Now let me return the compliment: "whose payroll are YOU on?"

Uh, South Korea had already agreed to withdraw its troops prior to the civilians getting kidnapped. This was well known. The point of the kidnapping was to stop South Korean missionary activity, because as is blazingly clear across the Islamic world, Islam and its practioners are terrified of other faiths. Honestly, why would you kidnap a bunch of South Korean Christians (and kill two of them for refusing to convert to Islam) if Islam were so great? Obviously their missionary work would be a pointless waste of time and money if it didn't have some effect. In actuality, of course, peaceful Christians bringing in food and medicine might actually be a nice break for the locals rather than all the beheadings and mass chaos under the Taliban.

In a recurrent theme around these web boards, nobody seems to call Islam to task for what amounts to a gigantic inferiority complex: if Islam is so great, then why are other religions not allowed into Islamic countries? This is like proclaiming one's self the world's best soccer player - and refusing to play any other teams. Theoretically you might be right, but odds are you aren't. By the same token, this is the obvious truth about the ridiculous "World's Fastest Growing Religion" claims you hear about Islam (a laugher second only to "Religion of Peace") - first of all, only someone with religion envy would feel a need to brag about this, and second of all I guess if you kill anyone who tries to leave Islam you can scare people into checking off "Muslim" on their census forms.

Lastly, I had the misfortune of reading some post in here about how Christians are the only people engaged in missionary work around the world - as if this alone is an excuse for killing them. Again, this is ridiculously untrue. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims travel abroad every year to take up residence in Western countries and agitate for sharia. The difference is that while Christian missionaries are motivated by the teachings of the church to help others and end suffering, Muslims are motivated by "jihad" to violently spread Islam everywhere and drag everyone back to the 7th century. It's no coincidence that Christians are leaving advanced countries to help out in underdeveloped ones, while Muslims are leaving underdeveloped countries to cripple advanced ones.

Indeed, the crude efforts to constantly compare Christians and Muslims in these threads border on the delusional. Trying to deflect blame for Muslim atrocities ranging from the Armenian genocide to intentionally suicide bombing women and children by claiming "Well... Christians did the same thing back in year XXXX" is like trying to get out of a murder rap by claiming your neighbor beats his wife. Even if true, so what? You are still responsible for your own actions, and whining about the loss of Spain or why the infidels have all the cool TVs and healthcare isn't going to cut it. Maybe if one of those "Islamic paradises" really were such you might start taking responsibility for it instead of blaming everyone else for your self-inflicted problems.

Dave,

I'm sorry, but on matters of us living and them dying, I have no patience anymore for, and will not discuss, scholastic Ifs and Buts. I am of the opinion that we all have done that far too long already, during all those years, taking ourselves ever so seriously, and indifferent, at best, while literally millions of them were dying.

It is easy to sacrifice other people's lives; much too easy, still, to argue that one should let others die instead of negotiating their release.

The lies and the deception that commonly and repeatedly serve to justify all those losers' military adventures have become so enormous, have been made so public, that everyone in the world can now see clearly that no one deserves to die for THAT. To die for that is to die in vain. No need to get into the fine print when one already rejects the whole proposal.

It is high time we move away from permanent conflicts and perpetual war. No viable world can ever be erected on permanent conflicts and on perpetual war based exclusively on lies and deception, however much they make the arms suppliers prosperous and the ultimate losers "famous".

If people who cheer for war from the sidelines and in the rear only spent half that time working for peace, the world would be making genuine human progress, the exact opposite of what it is doing at present.

Why do we not hear the word "PEACE" anymore? Precisely because we prefer to bury ourselves into scholastic distinctions ad nauseam, rather than take one second to at least begin to consider the whole historical contexts that account for conflicts. That is the best proof we do not want to see those conflicts ever resolved.

I believe leochen24551 is right: "We Negotiate with our Enemies, if we're Smart." Tarzans and Rambos are not smart, would not even know how to begin negotiations!... They therefore "refuse" to negotiate.

To quote leochen24551 one more time: "You know that you are making Progress if you can stop calling them as Terrorists and look at them as Advesaries."

The day we see such genuine progress; when innocent people stop dying like flies for no reason whatsoever, in permanent conflicts and perpetual wars of our own making, we can revisit the fine print.

Meanwhile, genuine peace means the world won, while the pathetic warmongers lost.

Whenever permanent conflicts and perpetual war subsist, it only means that first the agressors, then the whole world, have lost.

Is not all the devastation caused, conflict after conflict, war after war, by those very losers who specialize in country reconstruction, still there for everyone to see?

Negotiating with terrorists only creates more terrorists and more kidnappings. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish, especially the authors of this destructive piece. Read some history... there are no examples where negotiating with terrorists found peace and many where the opposite is true. Are you on the payroll for Hamas?

Negotiating with terrorists only creates more terrorists and more kidnappings. Anyone who says otherwise is foolish, especially the authors of this destructive piece. Read some history... there are no examples where negotiating with terrorists found peace and many where the opposite is true. Are you on the payroll for Hamas?

JRLR,

"All the wise of yesteryears, all those who for decades on end insisted vociferously, hysterically, that "terrorist" IRA "only understood the language of force and violence", could and would only be "defeated" through military means and terror, all those are the silent losers of today."

The world is the "silent loser". All this does is encourage other groups to use these same terroristic means, regardless of whether they have a valid issue or not. So say that I don't like the US government's policy on Cuba. We know this has been policy for 40 years, many people have railed against it and called for a change. But there has been no change and the government does not seem to planning on changing this. I look at how the IRA got traction on their issue. If i were to follow that model, the logical step would be for me to start blowing up cafes and assassinating people. The government would then be forced to deal with me. They could negotiate with me or they could try to hunt me down and kill me. If they negotiated and I was not getting the results i wanted, I would just need to be more brutal in my attacks. I could even be sly and form a "Sinn Fein Cuba" political apparatus to give myself and my cause a sense of legitimacy. When I got what i wanted, we could all shake hands, break bread and celebrate this historic agreement. This scenario, being played out all over the globe, is your idea of a winning solution?

But you may say that it should never get to that point in the first place because the US government should address my concerns at the getgo. So it they did, and after those discussions if I feel the US did not give me what i wanted, i would feel justified in using terrorism to rectify that because I know it will get me the results i want. Once you negotiate or once people buy into the "one man's terrorist is anothers freedom fighter" mentality, you legitimize the terror strategy thereby making it ok to use again and again.

leochen24551 wrote: "We Negotiate with our Enemies, if we're Smart. You know that you are making Progress if you can stop calling them as Terrorists and look at them as Advesaries."

One case in point: Northern Ireland.

How was peace achieved, in that religious, sectarian, vicious, Christian milieu?

Through long, arduous negotiations and through the POLITICAL process, NOT militarily.

Attempts at resolving that conflict militarily were, and remain to this day, a dismal failure.

All the wise of yesteryears, all those who for decades on end insisted vociferously, hysterically, that "terrorist" IRA "only understood the language of force and violence", could and would only be "defeated" through military means and terror, all those are the silent losers of today.

To remember this is to have already learned something: not to repeat the same shameful, abominable mistakes.

I forgot to ask THE question:

"Was South-Korea right to help one of the world's richest nation invade one of the poorest ?"

So what, South-Korea withdrew troops that shouldn't have been there in the first place. My bet is that they *wanted* to withdraw them for a long time and they found that convenient excuse to do so without upsetting Uncle Sam. They might even have arranged that little kidnapping with some local tourist guides.

As for MikeB: are there 2 of you ? is the one claiming that terrorism is in the eye of the beholder the same as the muslim-hater ?

For the muslim-hater MikeB:

"There is flat out no evidence of any Christian group, anywhere on the planet, that has systematically murdered missionaries from other religious groups."

Missionaries, I don't know, but religious people for their belief, there are plenty, with plenty of evidence. Unfortunately.
- 6 million jews by christians during WW2
- bloody Sunday (North Ireland, 1972)
- Saint Barthélémy in 1572 where many thousand protestants where slaughtered by catholics

leochen24551
"You know that you are making Progress if you can stop calling them as Terrorists and look at them as Advesaries."

My Labor Day travels happened to take me to Shanksville, PA, the site of the crash of Flight 93 on 9-11. I paid my respects to those that died there and thought a lot about the act of the hijackers and the act of those on board. Your "everyone is a terrorist" arguement seems to ring somewhat hollow to me. Much like there are distinct differences between killing someone in self defense or in an accident and killing someone premeditated in cold blood, there are differences between Freedom fighters and cold blooded terrorists. Flying a plane full of fuel and people into a building is evil. It is terrorism. Al-qaeda is our adversary but they are also terrorists. Progress is everyone recognizing this and not applying moral relativism to this discussion.

leochen24551
"You know that you are making Progress if you can stop calling them as Terrorists and look at them as Advesaries."

My Labor Day travels happened to take me to Shanksville, PA, the site of the crash of Flight 93 on 9-11. I paid my respects to those that died there and thought a lot about the act of the hijackers and the act of those on board. Your "everyone is a terrorist" arguement seems to ring somewhat hollow to me. Much like there are distinct differences between killing someone in self defense or in an accident and killing someone premeditated in cold blood, there are differences between Freedom fighters and cold blooded terrorists. Flying a plane full of fuel and people into a building is evil. It is terrorism. Al-qaeda is our adversary but they are also terrorists. Progress is everyone recognizing this and not applying moral relativism to this discussion.

Whatever it takes to save lives. If that's hypocrisy, then so be it.

MikeB "Okay, I'm gpoing to call you on that one. Prove it! There is flat out no evidence of any Christian group, anywhere on the planet, that has systematically murdered missionaries from other religious groups."sic

Actually there is a lot of completely verifiable proof that the "Christians" in England persecuted, and in many cases executed Catholics, for many, many, many years. Ever heard of Mary Queen of Scots? The Protestant militants in Northern Ireland murdered people for being Catholic time and time again (and vice versa). Likewise the Catholic church executed Christians like Jan Hus, and countless others. Ever heard of the Hussite wars? The Spanish Inquisition?

Not that I think that proof of Christian atrocities would in any way lessen your prejudice against Muslims - as you speak with a veracity that suggests reason doesn't live in your neighborhood.

I will certainly agree, however, that Muslim intolerance is indoctrinated into the laws of more than a few nations, so you are correct in that respect. Your apparent conclusion that their intolerance is license for your own is what I find so scary about your posts.

One more thing, mikeb. When you foam at the mouth and spit vitriol at other posters for not being as full of hate as you are(see: "ignorant twit"), you just succeed in displaying to the world that you only post on this blog because noone in your real life would ever waste their time listening to you.

Oh, and victoria, you toss of the "bigot" label like an ignorant twit. So, I'm going to call you on another misappreension you appently suffer from. Go do some research and name us just one Islamic state, run under their religious laws, that tolerate any missionary that isn't their own local variety of Islam. There are a few "secular" states like Lebannon and Egypt and Turkey, where that may be "officially" true, but even there some version of their fundimentalists will happily slit your throat for preaching anything other than their version of Islam. And, in an state run under Islamic law, you are simply dead. That goes for such "allies" of ours as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, as well as for Iran and Afghanistan and most of Iraq and Indonesia, etc. Bigotry? Intolerance? Those terms are *defined* by the Muslim religion, that is it's norm, that is it's history!

victoria -
Okay, I'm gpoing to call you on that one. Prove it! There is flat out no evidence of any Christian group, anywhere on the planet, that has systematically murdered missionaries from other religious groups. There are no Christian led countries that have persecuted non0-christian missionaries at all. Cite just one recent example.

As for your Christian missionaries, the Korean's weren't "evangelicals", they were Presbyterians! Not exactly whacked out fundimentalists. Furthermore Methodists, Presbyterian, and many other Christian groups have active missions programs. So do Hindhu's and Buddhists, Bahia, and many other religious groups. All of them have suffered due to Islamic intolerance.

also mike, what about niger? christians killed countless muslims- tamil tigers, gujurat- sudan- palestineinas are being killed as we speak, americans have allowed hundreds of thousands of (600,00 WHO figures) of iraqi CHILDREN to directly due to 13 years iof sanctions by the US,(not my opinion- the stats of the world health organization)
it goes on and on and on-
people have subjugated others to their disadvantage (or death) throughout history-
who committed the holocaust on the ethiopians? christians!
this is just off the top of my head-
generally it is my experience in life that when someone accuses a collective group of people of some failing- like being bigots- they are actually revealing their own bigotry and condemning themsleves.
we accuse others of what we are guilty of mike b.

mike b. there ARENT any other evangelistsmissionaries BESIDES christians! so how could there be any opposing examples to give?

there arent b