Has NATO Lost the war?

[exile]

Afghanistan is a religious state. Religious states are what would be considered tyrannies in the United States constitution. Isn't that just what the Taliban wanted? Hasn't the United States lost the war against terror? The government has been aiding in the establishment of religious states or tyrannies.

 

[iBrian]

Saudi Arabia is a religious dictatorship, but to date has proven an invaluable ally for the USA.

 

[radarmark]

exile, please point out where in the U.S. Constitution "tyranny" or "religion" exist. Oh, do nopt bother, they do not. What is your point?

 

[exile]

exile, please point out where in the U.S. Constitution "tyranny" or "religion" exist. Oh, do nopt bother, they do not. What is your point?

My mistake it was the Declaration of Independence.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

The Constitution does say this though:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The religious heads of state or no different then the kings or princes that they're talking about. To establish a religious state is totally unconstitutional and it is also goes against our human rights. What happened to freedom of belief? In the U.S. Church is separate from state. This is a good model. A religious state restricts our human rights.

 

[radarmark]

My mistake it was the Declaration of Independence:

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

This hardly constitutes the same thing as dealing with (say) Israel or Saudi Arabia or helping to establish a “religious state in Afghanistan”. Where does it state anything about religion? Your premise is that “establishment of religious states or tyrannies” is against what is written is utterly unfounded.

Where is the repeated injury or the petitions of redress in respect to Afghanistan? Who is the Prince? You are assuming your premise (religious state), I refute it as a matter of empirical data (they have constitution and president and no shadow “Supreme Leader” like Iran). If the Afghans directly or indirectly chose a religious government (which they have not) that is their right. We elected Bush II did we not?

The Constitution does say this though:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

All this means is that the United States confers no titles and someone in office cannot accept one without a Congressional Consent. How do you get from that to a discussion of religion and tyranny (which are two different things)?

The religious heads of state or no different then the kings or princes that they're talking about. To establish a religious state is totally unconstitutional and it is also goes against our human rights. What happened to freedom of belief? In the U.S. Church is separate from state. This is a good model. A religious state restricts our human rights.

First, where is the “religious head of state” in this case? By the way we do recognize them, note the Queen (head of state, head of the Anglican Church) and the Pope (head of Church and Vatican City). Establishing a religious head of state here (in the U.S.A.) would clearly be illegal and Unconstitutional. Approving or establishing of one in Afghanistan cannot be since it is not part of the U.S.


We have (thank G!D) freedom of religious belief here. There are limitations in most of the world (from China to Kenya), so what? It does not infringe on our freedom. We only take action when those limitations rise to some level. That is what we have Treaties, diplomats, laws, and Executive action for. And I really, really doubt that Israel or England or Vatican City restricts the human rights of its citizens.


Different issue is “we are allowing the Salafists to take control of government” in (name your country). If they enact what our culture considers repressive and inhumane measures, then we can take and have taken appropriate action (is that what you are saying?). What do you think started the Afghan War?

 

[Amergin]

My mistake it was the Declaration of Independence.

"In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

The DOI was a splendid document. I liked its emphasis on life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. They needed the Constitution to establish rights and protections to maintain that personal freedom. That personal freedom has been slowly eroding in the USA in the last half-century. The only victory was the Civil Rights Movement against racism. Sadly, the Fascist Party (Republican) is employing criminals to deprive minorities from the right to vote. It is sad to see, after the hope of the 60's, a retrogressive return to discrimination and chipping away constitutional freedoms. America is now the country in NATO with the least personal freedom.

The Constitution does say this though:

"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

The religious heads of state or no different then the kings or princes that they're talking about. To establish a religious state is totally unconstitutional and it is also goes against our human rights.

We Europeans and Americans have made a dangerous habit of paying million dollar bribes to brutal dictators who pretend to fight Communism for 60 years. We both supported some dictators to fight other dictators. It is pure rubbish. All foreign aide to the Middle East should end, period.

What happened to freedom of belief? In the U.S. Church is separate from state. This is a good model. A religious state restricts our human rights.

I disagree there. The US is a de facto Religious State or Theocracy. The name of the Christian God must be mentioned in every political speech. Many laws are based on Christian bias. The Drug War is a religious motivated movement to control what you personally eat, drink, smoke, or snort. They believe the Christian Government has a right to regulate your body. They had alcohol prohibition which spurred organized crime.

Catholic and Evangelical Christian Cults want to legislate:

Obstetrical Socialism, with invasion of a woman's vagina and birth planning.

Health Business, putting corporations between doctor and patients.

Christian defined marriage, outlawing polygamy and same sex unions.

Prevent trial and punishment of priests and pastors for paedophilia,

The Christian Taliban Party (Republican) favours spying on people, invading their privacy, monitoring phone calls and internet, spy on you in the bedroom, and I suspect they want digital cameras in your house, bedroom, and bathroom.

Is any of this compatible with the constitution? No. At this time America is a crumbling democracy on the way to a Corporation Empire with mandatory Christian Laws (Taliban.)

BTW, the war in Afghanistan is lost. Prolonging that losing war is criminal. Bush, Cheney, and Obama should be tried for war crimes.

Amergin

 

[exile]

Establishing a religious head of state here (in the U.S.A.) would clearly be illegal and Unconstitutional. Approving or establishing of one in Afghanistan cannot be since it is not part of the U.S.

There you go. Establishing a religious state would be illegal and unconstitutional. Why would that be?

First, where is the “religious head of state” in this case? By the way we do recognize them, note the Queen (head of state, head of the Anglican Church) and the Pope (head of Church and Vatican City). Establishing a religious head of state here (in the U.S.A.) would clearly be illegal and Unconstitutional. Approving or establishing of one in Afghanistan cannot be since it is not part of the U.S.

And that is stupid that the U.S. recognizes them. It goes against everything I was taught by Americans themselves. It was religion that started the war. It was religion that led to the ban on film, music, women going to school, and the persecution of non-Talibs in Afghanistan. The Taliban even tried to eradicate the Pashtun heritage, and every heritage that wasn't Muslim.

 

[exile]

The name of the Christian God must be mentioned in every political speech.

What the hell?

 

[radarmark]

exile, the difference you are overlooking is that Afghanistan is not in the U.S. Neither is Enland or the Vatican City. Our laws do not apply to them, only to citizens of the U.S.

You may say it is stupid for us to deal with Enland or Vatican City, fine. I believe we must deal with all countries nowdays (even if we were to be at a state of war with them). It's called international relatiions.

I agree, the Taliban we bad dudes who never should have come to power. But they did. It eas not religion that began the Global War on Terror Post-9/11 (GWOT). It was the acts of terror. Afghanistan was invaded (correctly according to Just War Theory) because the Taliban would not hand over the person or persons who directed 9/11. I wrote to then President Bush and suggested a declaration of war on UBL and all members of Alqida (he did not take my suggestion, obviously). So the GWOT is like our similarly inappropriately named "War on Drugs". Thw war part is just a figure of speech.

Yes. it was the religious beliefs of UBL that led to 9/11, it was the religionus belief of the Taliban that led to the War in Afghanistan (and the tyranny you cite). But it was not "religion" in general or the fact that Sheikh Omar held his position as de facto religi0ous heads of state. UBL certainlly did not fit this criteria, nor have we ever goine to War with the Pope or England (at least over religious differences, yet).

 

[Amergin]

. We elected Bush II did we not?

Yes, you elected a man with a very narrow minded religious cult mentality. He did not go after Bin Ladin for bombing New York. He even called the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, a crusade. His invasion of Afghanistan was an anti-Taliban Muslim War. He even let Bin Ladin escape in a motorcade from Kandahar when US pilots wanted to hit that motorcade. Bin Ladin escaped. Bush made no serious attempt to get him even though we knew he was in Pakistan. Obama finally did take out Bin Ladin for 9-11.

What does Baptist President Bush do next? He calls for National Day or Month of PRAYER. He implied that God sent him on that mission to take Iraq which was a former ally fighting Al Qaeda in the mountains of Northeast Iraq. He attacked the enemy of our enemy. Obviously it was for oil and corporate profits. 8,000 American soldier's lives were expendable for his twisted needs and that of his corporation bosses. He took the oath of office on a Christian Bible. He and his party supported Christian based laws restricting personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom from being spied upon by Homeland Security on your phones, computers, and with a million cameras watching you piss. If he was not a religious president then Stalin was not an atheist.

First, where is the “religious head of state” in this case?

The office of President is a De Facto Religious post in America. It is more connected to right wing religion than the Queen Elizabeth II to all of Christianity in the UK . The Queen is more of a figurehead. The US president is president of American Christianity..By the way we do recognize them, note the Queen (head of state, head of the Anglican Church) and the Pope (head of Church and Vatican City). Establishing a religious head of state here (in the U.S.A.) would clearly be illegal and Unconstitutional. Approving or establishing of one in Afghanistan cannot be since it is not part of the U.S.[/quote]

Establishing a religious head of state is not illegal or unconstitutional in America. What is illegal is using the office of president to shove Christian Fundamentalism down your throats. If you elected Santorum, he would clearly be a Religious Head of State imposing catholic superstition on all Americans from birth control, women's pregnancy management, and likely restore Bush's campaign (Patriot acts) to eliminate the last vestiges of personal freedom in America. Wake up Radar, your country is not the land of the free. It is a land of more laws than the Old Soviet Union, UK, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. You need to travel to other countries to find out what personal freedom is. These Taliban Republicans want to continue paid holidays on Christian holy days but not Hindu, Muslim, or Buddhist.

We have (thank G!D) freedom of religious belief here. There are limitations in most of the world (from China to Kenya), so what?

You do not have freedom of religious belief in America. Maryland and 7 other states have laws banning non-believers from holding public office. I realize that an admitted atheist has no chance of national or state elected office due to the intense Christian bigotry in America. But 15% (by Baptist run poll) are non-theists in America. You have Christmas and Easter paid holidays, Why not let Non-believers have a holiday on Darwin's birthday Feb. 12, the Summer solstice, the Winter Solstice, the birthdays of Robert G. Ingersoll, Clarence Darrow, and Carl Sagan?

Different issue is “we are allowing the Salafists to take control of government” in (name your country)

Some people can't eat salads.

If they enact what our culture considers repressive and inhumane measures, then we can take and have taken appropriate action (is that what you are saying?). What do you think started the Afghan War?

You cannot take action against countries with governments that you dislike. It is up to the people to overthrow bad governments. The Afghan War was started on the excuse of going after Al Qaeda. Bin Ladin sought and got safety in your nasty ally Pakistan. Then Bush said it was nation building. You have no right to build nations where you are not invited. He used Taliban abuses as an excuse for a Christian crusade. Al Qaeda not the Taliban attacked New York. Afghanistan is a Christian crusade that has failed like the ones back in 1098-1282 CE. Iraq was a purely economic war. Saddam was weakened from his own religious war with Iran. Bush working for his Corporation bosses like Halliburton lied about weapons of mass destruction. He wanted a war of conquest and the familiar Nation building for which Corporations like Halliburton would STEAL billions of dollars from the American People.

Radar, my friend, I respect you and your posts but feel you have been snookered by neo-fascist corporation propaganda. Your news TV is all biased and unreliable. You need to gather patriotic Americans in Philadelphia and decide how to restore the Constitution and the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The rest of the world sees what your government is really like, a Corporation Plutocratic Dictatorship allied to a Christian form of Taliban.

Amergin

 

[exile]

The whole thing was very shiesty from the beginning. The Taliban were going to hand Bin Laden over to the Americans before 911. Taliban 'offered bin Laden trial before 9/11' - Central & South Asia - Al Jazeera English

And there were no WMD's in Iraq.

 

[exile]

If the United States had a problem recognizing the Taliban's religious state how come they don't have a problem recognizing other religious states. Conditions have got to be just as bad for the Saudis even today, no? I think the war was premeditated. The Afghans had just won the war against the ultimate enemy the USSR and then became the bigger fish to fry.

 

[radarmark]

I just do not understand completely what you are saying. Were the Afghans under the Taliban as persecuted as the Arabs under the Haouse of Saud? Perhaps, but the economy is better... you can buy a lot of support with bread and circuses.

What war was premeditated? Iraq, unboudtably. Afghanistan, very unlikely. If you go back to the messaages that flew between Kabul and Washington post 9/11, regardless of what your source (by the way a Talib) says, it is pretty doggone clear that they would not either arrest UBL or let us take him into custody.

Sorry, I was a "special operator" in Soputheast Asia (look up Laos during the Vietnam War). I know I could have found the operators together to "get" UBL, al-Zawarhi, KSM, and Mullah Omar. Or we (the U.S.) could have formally declared war and done it above board. However, our president at the time was under the influsenc eof some very bad and untrustworthy people (I believe Bush II and others should still be charged per Vincent Bugliosi: The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder).

But it is over... done. Did my son (a SEAL) fight for religion? no. Did any of the many Iraq and Afghanistan vets I know? Not the ones on the tip of the spear, the ones actually in combat in the early days.

Yes, we (the U.S. military) have our share of fruit-loops (the same personality types as who fought for Salafism on the other side), those "Chrisittan Crusaders". I happen to believe there were are are far less (as a percentage) than in the Taliban or al-Quaeda.

exile, I think we agree in principle... I am just a stickler for the right words!

Peace Unto You, My Friend.

 

[exile]

Afghanistan, very unlikely. If you go back to the messaages that flew between Kabul and Washington post 9/11, regardless of what your source (by the way a Talib) says, it is pretty doggone clear that they would not either arrest UBL or let us take him into custody.

I just have a hard time believing that the thousands of Afghans that are locked up in Guantanamo or the ones still fighting give that much of a crap about Bin Laden. Have we even heard from those prisoners? Do we know what their side of the story is? Was it to defend Bin Laden or was it to defend Afghanistan?

 

[exile]

I just do not understand completely what you are saying. Were the Afghans under the Taliban as persecuted as the Arabs under the Haouse of Saud? Perhaps, but the economy is better... you can buy a lot of support with bread and circuses.

Yeah, so why was it ok to recognize the Saudi government and not the Taliban. There were no Afghans or Iraqis on the planes on 911. Most of hijackers were Saudi, Egyptian, and Lebanese. If Al Qaeda is an international terrorist network, then how come the only countries to have been invaded were Afghanistan and Iraq.

But it is over... done. Did my son (a SEAL) fight for religion? no. Did any of the many Iraq and Afghanistan vets I know? Not the ones on the tip of the spear, the ones actually in combat in the early days.

I got family that works for the military in Afghanistan too. But I don't think most of the troops really know why they're in Afghanistan. To me it looks like one theocracy was replaced with another theocracy. What should have happened was democracy (Loya Jirga) should have been restored and church should have been separated from state. Islam is destroying the Afghan identity.

The average Afghans and Iranians have been so brainwashed by Islam its almost become taboo to speak of any religion other than Islam with them. Islam has created tension. The educated Afghans and Iranians on the other hand are more open to their pre-Islamic heritage. They're not just more open they're proud of their pre-Islamic heritage. It's the same way with European Americans. All they know is Christianity. They're not interested in their pre-Christian roots. They have all been blinded by blind faith.

 

[Amergin]

What the hell?

Sorry, I did not mean to say the NAME of God. Every politician puts "God" multiple times in every speech. Even Republicans say "Jesus" often but paradoxically they are the ones who denounce his teachings. They oppose healing the sick, redistributing wealth to the poor, feeding the starving, compassion for abused women, and making the rich pay their fair share. Jesus said that a rich man getting into heaven was harder than a camel passing through the eye of a needle. If Jesus did come back today, he would be booed at the Republican National Convention if he repeated his gospel teachings.

Amergin

 

[Servetus]

Source:
Zbigniew Brzezinski:

"... But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase ["war on terror"] was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue ..."


In that sense, and now that the secret is out, the "war on terror," as I see it, has been a resounding success. America is broke. Untold numbers of Iraqis and Afghanis are dead. The demagogic politicians rule the day and if Woodrow Wilson supposedly made the world safe for democracy, Bush and Obama, in a geopolitical end-game of sorts, are making the world, and especially the Middle East, safe for no-bid oil contracts and Israeli nuclear hegemony.


Serv

 

[radarmark]

Amergin. Very strange, I feel that your attitudes are just the flip side of the Dominationists. Anything the U.S. does must be wrong and must be part of a giant religious plot. That should be another thread. I went to Lexus/Nexus... there is no state that has a statute fobidding an atheist from running for office. Please source your claims, otherwise everyone will come to think of you as I do, the flip side of Rushdooony (who never needed any proof or logic, he spoke to God directly).

 

[Servetus]

... Every politician puts "God" multiple times in every speech ...

If you are citing this as an instance of America's theocratic tendencies, I think it is really little more than an example of what Michael Harrington called America's pro forma religiosity combined with de facto atheism. It seems to me that the state-sponsored religion of America is mammonism. Generally speaking, with talk of idealism aside, America's fealty is to money and materialism. Far more than religion, the "economy," for instance, is the focus of every State of the Union address. "The business of America," said one of its high priests in sum (and only partially quoted), "is business."

I grant that the barely suppressed jihadist tendencies of Christian fundamentalists can be not only exploited but also manipulated by Western power elites with designs upon the Middle East and its holy oil wells, but that is not to say that the Christian fundamentalists are the power brokers in the deal. Far from it.

Furthermore, the power and influence of religion, especially in the wake of the long march of the avowedly anti-Christian cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School through what they called the "institutions of power," including, notably, academia, is on the wane. With that said, and in light of the recent Clinton and Bush administrations, it seems to me that the greater threat to America and its institutions than any given child educated by his or her fundamentalist Christian parents at home is any given graduate of Yale University.


Serv

 

[radarmark]

Servetus, do you think that this is the driiving factor in the U.S.'s "race to the bottom" as far as general knowledge and academic performance goes? Children educated at home by fundamentalists would have a very tough time with concepts in philosophy, history and science it would seem to me. Let alone critical thinking and formal operations.