NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is a nice link reminding everyone of who there friends are. What possibly can they be thinking. With an angry public wanting to find who is responsible. This is ill advised from any Iranian cleric to say this now at the least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665133.stm


Then they end this with Death To America, Israel and the UK.

Another case of one of those cowards laughing and scorning at other people's tragedies. :gundge: :sniper:

Seeing how many people said exactly the same thing on this forum the moment it happened (most of the British), I wouldn't act so surprised.

Id like to invite Iran to become a proper nation.

He may have had a point in that had the west shrugged off the first Al-Qaeda attack rather than charging off in a blind rage, they might not have become what they are today. However, all credibility is lost at the "Death To America, Israel and the UK"; he's just asking for it when he effectively sides with the terrorists, and inciting global destruction when he does so in the name of Islam.

Foolish, foolish man. So are the western leaders, of course, but that doesn't excuse this degree of sheer idiocy...

As a Scotsman and a memeber of this Union i cant say how strongly how i feel about these cowardly attacks by these so called freedom fighters.I am not sure i agree with the War With Iraq but we have started it and if we where to leave Iraq right now without a stong Iraqi Goverment, it would destabilise iraq, the surrounding states even more!.These Freedom Fighters dont talk for Islam and are useing it as an excuse to kill innocent people!.The UK will continue as normal and will not cowed in submission,the blitz did not stop london and neither did the IRA!.I call upon all Arabs and the People Of The World to find a peaceful resolution,stand firm and stop those who seek to sow anarchy through spilling of innocent blood!.

Well said Death to Dalse Metal. It's all very well to say that the British brought it on themselves, but it's not true. These people don't kill because of policy. They kill because they just enjoy it. They are sick, evil murderers who want to wipe civilization from the planet and replace it with their crazy murderer paradise. They haven't attacked because of Iraq. They've been bombing for the past ten years at least! What was the motivation for 9/11. It's just a convienient exuse to kill people that they hate just for being different. And may these terrorists die horribly and painfully, that's all I can say.

http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/article.aspx?as=adimarticle&ae=windows-1252&f=uk_-_olgbtopnews&t=4023&id=1027831&d=20050709&do=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk&i=http://newsbox.msn.co.uk/mediaexportlive&ks=0&mc=5&ml=ma&lc=en


"There isn't a single country in Europe that can consider itself immune to this type of risk," European Union Counter-Terrorism Coordinator Gijs de Vries said in Brussels.

It doesn't matter to these terrorists who they hit, they saw that the biggest and easiest target was London due to the G8 summit and the worlds eyes on the UK

Well said Death to Dalse Metal. It's all very well to say that the British brought it on themselves, but it's not true. These people don't kill because of policy. They kill because they just enjoy it. They are sick, evil murderers who want to wipe civilization from the planet and replace it with their crazy murderer paradise. They haven't attacked because of Iraq. They've been bombing for the past ten years at least! What was the motivation for 9/11. It's just a convienient exuse to kill people that they hate just for being different. And may these terrorists die horribly and painfully, that's all I can say.

Quite right. To hell with them all. And the Iranian government.

Actually, I understand that in Iran, "Death to America/Israel/Flavour of the Month" isn't considered a "strong" statement, but a rather mundane, routine way of finishing many a political criticism. Almost customary in some circles. In other words, the words have been said so many times in the last quarter century, they have lost much of their impact over there. That kind of hyperbole may not sound particularly offensive to those used to hearing it.

So I wouldn't place any emphasis on that particular part of it.

So, judging by responses here I don't really think many people read the article. It is a round condemnation of terrorism, but it does place blame on people and policies that have helped bring it about in the first place. Suprise, what we do 25 years ago does come around! So, I suppose that the bigger question is where the problem lies. This argument is not a false one, it reminds us that we do share responsibility for creating a group that now aims at our demise and destruction. Do we shrug off the words of this man because we don't want to shoulder our share of responsibility? As long as we continue to support state sponsored terrorism (anyone that thinks we don't, well.... remember the Contras, and the Mujahadeen, from which al-Qaeda sprang), then we will contine to have problems.

Unfortunately, I will proabably catch flak from this one, which is great, excersize your free speech, but just to say in advance: I DO NOT CONDONE ACTS OF TERRORISM. This includes 'collateral damage', (i.e. dead school children from a tomahawk cruise missile does count as terrorism) What happened in London is terrible and my heart is with those that have suffered in this attack.

Unless I am absolutely daft (wouldn't that be a blessing?), the article says this (italics and underscoring mine):

"Ayatollah Kashani attacked the West's war on terror
Iran has condemned the bomb attacks in London as inhumane, and offered its condolences to the victims.

But one of the country's top clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Emami-Kashani, said they were the direct result of the UK's support for US and Israeli policies.

The ayatollah called al-Qaeda an "illegitimate child" of the West.

The Friday prayer leader said it was divine justice that a group which had nothing to do with Islam had now conspired against its backers (being the US, Israel, and UK).

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says Iran's view is that US funding for extremist Sunni Muslim groups opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s set the stage for the emergence of the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

Stinging attack

A commentary on Iranian state radio, meanwhile, blamed the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, for the attacks.


"This savagery is not Islam - it is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you"
Ayatollah Emami-Kashani

It said Mossad was the only group capable of carrying out such operations in London and had often tried to attract attention to its opponents during G8 meetings in the past.

Ayatollah Kashani condemned the blasts, but also launched a stinging attack on Western foreign policy, punctuated with cries of "death to America, Britain and Israel".

"You talk about al-Qaeda. Have you forgotten who has bred al-Qaeda?" he asked, in remarks addressed to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"It's the illegitimate child of America and Israel, but you name it Islam. This savagery is not Islam. It is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you."

'Change your ways'

He said the West had also nurtured former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by supplying him with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

"You armed Saddam with every weapon against us," he said. "But your feet are still bogged down in the Iraqi quagmires and you cannot get out."

He also attacked US George W Bush's war on terror and Middle East policies.

"Where have you reached by cracking down on terrorism? It has happened again because you do not want to use your head."

"You train terrorists and state terrorism. If you want to succeed you have to leave Palestine alone," he added.

"Acting against terrorism must be honest ... and you will not succeed unless you wise up and change your ways."

This is noteworthy because clerics from other countries or religions can't be loonies. (http://www.godhatesamerica.com/)

Even if this particular Iranian cleric does make several good points.

So, judging by responses here I don't really think many people read the article. It is a round condemnation of terrorism, but it does place blame on people and policies that have helped bring it about in the first place. Suprise, what we do 25 years ago does come around! So, I suppose that the bigger question is where the problem lies. This argument is not a false one, it reminds us that we do share responsibility for creating a group that now aims at our demise and destruction. Do we shrug off the words of this man because we don't want to shoulder our share of responsibility? As long as we continue to support state sponsored terrorism (anyone that thinks we don't, well.... remember the Contras, and the Mujahadeen, from which al-Qaeda sprang), then we will contine to have problems.

Unfortunately, I will proabably catch flak from this one, which is great, excersize your free speech, but just to say in advance: I DO NOT CONDONE ACTS OF TERRORISM. This includes 'collateral damage', (i.e. dead school children from a tomahawk cruise missile does count as terrorism) What happened in London is terrible and my heart is with those that have suffered in this attack.

Unless I am absolutely daft (wouldn't that be a blessing?), the article says this (italics and underscoring mine):

"Ayatollah Kashani attacked the West's war on terror
Iran has condemned the bomb attacks in London as inhumane, and offered its condolences to the victims.

But one of the country's top clerics, Ayatollah Mohammed Emami-Kashani, said they were the direct result of the UK's support for US and Israeli policies.

The ayatollah called al-Qaeda an "illegitimate child" of the West.

The Friday prayer leader said it was divine justice that a group which had nothing to do with Islam had now conspired against its backers (being the US, Israel, and UK).

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says Iran's view is that US funding for extremist Sunni Muslim groups opposing the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980s set the stage for the emergence of the Taleban and al-Qaeda.

Stinging attack

A commentary on Iranian state radio, meanwhile, blamed the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, for the attacks.


"This savagery is not Islam - it is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you"
Ayatollah Emami-Kashani

It said Mossad was the only group capable of carrying out such operations in London and had often tried to attract attention to its opponents during G8 meetings in the past.

Ayatollah Kashani condemned the blasts, but also launched a stinging attack on Western foreign policy, punctuated with cries of "death to America, Britain and Israel".

"You talk about al-Qaeda. Have you forgotten who has bred al-Qaeda?" he asked, in remarks addressed to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"It's the illegitimate child of America and Israel, but you name it Islam. This savagery is not Islam. It is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you."

'Change your ways'

He said the West had also nurtured former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by supplying him with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

"You armed Saddam with every weapon against us," he said. "But your feet are still bogged down in the Iraqi quagmires and you cannot get out."

He also attacked US George W Bush's war on terror and Middle East policies.

"Where have you reached by cracking down on terrorism? It has happened again because you do not want to use your head."

"You train terrorists and state terrorism. If you want to succeed you have to leave Palestine alone," he added.

"Acting against terrorism must be honest ... and you will not succeed unless you wise up and change your ways."

I cant agree with you here. Britain may have contributed to terrorism in the past, but has not necessarily chosen to do so. We aren't quite as evil as this idiot preacher makes out. I do not agree with the war in Iraq and I never have, but I will not pay any attention to what this zealot has to say. The reason we armed Saddam was to prevent something even worse, Islamic revolutionary chaos, from engulfing the Middle East. I accept we may have been wrong. But this man, like all those in power in Iran, is so blinded by his hatred towards the West that he becomes a total hypocrite. His chants of "death to America, UK, Israel etc" are an insult. Also, his message is that Israel and Mossad were responsible which, to be frank, is bollocks. It is shameful that he tries to use this opportunity to get one over the Israelis. This insensitive bastard has no place talking about terrorism when he is one of those who perpetuates a state of barbaric ignorance through his words. It is completely appaling and those of you who have any sympathy for him should wait until the bodies are cleared from the London Underground before you claim we brought it on ourselves.

This is noteworthy because clerics from other countries or religions can't be loonies. (http://www.godhatesamerica.com/)

Even if this particular Iranian cleric does make several good points.



"Face it, America! You have become a fag-filled nation of flag worshipers and necromancers."



We have necromancers? Cool, I didn't know that :eek:

If Iran thinks that UK brought the attacks on itself by supporting the Iraq war and Israel maybe Iran should get what it deserves for supporting Hezbollah. If I was as barbaric as some Islamists I would be tempted to get a fake passport and blow up some targets in Tehran. Lucky for them I'm a better person than that.

If Iran thinks that UK brought the attacks on itself by supporting the Iraq war and Israel then I'd just like to see Iran get what it deserves for supporting Hezbollah. If I was as barbaric as some Islamists I would be tempted to get a fake passport and blow up some targets in Tehran. Lucky for them I'm a better person than that.
Erm, you're confusing Iran with Syria. :rolleyes:

Go back to watching FOX.

Here is a nice link reminding everyone of who there friends are. What possibly can they be thinking. With an angry public wanting to find who is responsible. This is ill advised from any Iranian cleric to say this now at the least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665133.stm


Then they end this with Death To America, Israel and the UK.
It is easy to see that you love sensationalism and are a war monger to boot. Your obvious anger and hatred are clearly on display.

First off, the title of this thread is "UK invited attacks so says Iranian Cleric", yet the story that you linked to is titled "UK policy invited attacks - Iran".

Secondly, the other ill conceived thread you started was titled, "British blood on the hands of the Spanish electorate".

You read the "death to America" part, but ignored the relevant truths that the cleric brought forward:

"You talk about al-Qaeda. Have you forgotten who has bred al-Qaeda?" he asked, in remarks addressed to UK Prime Minister Tony Blair.

"It's the illegitimate child of America and Israel, but you name it Islam. This savagery is not Islam. It is coming from inside of you and it is now punching you."

'Change your ways'

He said the West had also nurtured former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein by supplying him with weapons during the Iran-Iraq war.

"You armed Saddam with every weapon against us," he said. "But your feet are still bogged down in the Iraqi quagmires and you cannot get out."

He also attacked US George W Bush's war on terror and Middle East policies.

"Where have you reached by cracking down on terrorism? It has happened again because you do not want to use your head."

"You train terrorists and state terrorism. If you want to succeed you have to leave Palestine alone," he added.

"Acting against terrorism must be honest ... and you will not succeed unless you wise up and change your ways."

From what I can see, it appears that Afghanistan and Iraq are not enough for you? You want to stir up hatred for Iran, while also trashing Spain for pulling out of the "coalition of the willing"?

Perhaps YOU should suit up and put your ass on the line in Iraq, instead of starting disengenuos threads such as these.

Erm, you're confusing Iran with Syria. :rolleyes:

Go back to watching FOX.
Erm, no I'm not. Iran is known to support Hezbollah. Syria hosts them, but they're funded and supported by Iran. Look it up.

BTW, I don't watch Fox news, though I enjoy the simpsons on Fox's network tv channel.

If Iran thinks that UK brought the attacks on itself by supporting the Iraq war and Israel maybe Iran should get what it deserves for supporting Hezbollah. If I was as barbaric as some Islamists I would be tempted to get a fake passport and blow up some targets in Tehran. Lucky for them I'm a better person than that.

Exactly. Its all well and good for these people to lecture us. Look at what they have created. Possibly one of the most evil nations in the world, where oppression and bigotry are the order of the day. It is people like this preacher, who give al- queda their main weapon, the foul mutation of Islam that they use to justify their crimes. I hope the Ayatollahs gets whats coming to them and this bastard gets what he deserves.

-Snip-
He dealt with a few good points, yes. However, don't you see how ridicule-worthy the "Death to US/Israel/UK" comment is? It invalidates the rest of his argument, particularly if he said it more than once. Even if that is commonplace language, it doesn't change what it means, and it's hypocritical to state condemnation of terrorist killings in the UK before following up with wishing yet further death in the very same country.

Yes, okay, western policies hyped up Al-Qaeda and strengthened the regimes they now struggle with. We knew that already. But which worries you more; the terrorists actively declaring panic and chaos on the streets of London or the fact that "Death to the West" has now become the Iranian equivilent of the exclamation mark?!?

Complete hypocrite. Death to Islam!

So now I'm thinking;
How do I join anti-islam paramilitary groups? Are there any?

Complete hypocrite. Death to Islam!

So now I'm thinking;
How do I join anti-islam paramilitary groups? Are there any?

Bad idea. Doing so would be playing right into the terrorists' intentions. You wouldn't want to be a terrorist collaberator, would you?

I would, in fact, encourage for the immediate arrest of any anti-islam groups under those very laws created to ultimately prevent any islamic groups doing similar sorts of things.

Isn't irony marvellous? ^__^;

And no, I'm agno/christo/athei/buddhist. Ish. <_<;

I care what was said, not who said it. He made some good points, and I'll take those with me and forget where they came from. Ideas aren't property.

Enethie: You're entirely right! Theres no such thing as rights, copyrights and licenses.

It is exactly WHO said this that is the problem! Iranian clerics preaching "Death to America, Britain and Israel" is a huge problem. You can take the words and forget about who said them but when you become a target for terrorists don't forget to ignore that too! Good job we have SOME leaders with their heads screwed on.

Kamsaki: Good point well made.

Exactly. Its all well and good for these people to lecture us. Look at what they have created. Possibly one of the most evil nations in the world, where oppression and bigotry are the order of the day. It is people like this preacher, who give al- queda their main weapon, the foul mutation of Islam that they use to justify their crimes. I hope the Ayatollahs gets whats coming to them and this bastard gets what he deserves.
I think Iran already got a taste of what you say they "deserve" during the Iran/Iraq War, and a lot of it was chemical in nature? Perhaps you might have forgotten about US/UK involvement in that war?

I think Iran already got a taste of what you say they "deserve" during the Iran/Iraq War, and a lot of it was chemical in nature? Perhaps you might have forgotten about US/UK involvement in that war?

Actually I hadnt, I think you'll find I referred to it in a previous post. I feel it was the lesser of two evils. I said that I hoped the wicked and corrupt Iranian government got what it deserved not Iran. Try actually reading what I have written before you seek to lecture me. London, the capital of my country, was attacked yesterday and they are still looking for the dead. For this man to dare to say this is an outrage and you will not persuade me otherwise.

He made some good points he made some bad points. Why is it that there always seems to be a blame the victim response now whenever something truely horrible happens?

[/QUOTE]Yes, okay, western policies hyped up Al-Qaeda and strengthened the regimes they now struggle with. We knew that already. But which worries you more; the terrorists actively declaring panic and chaos on the streets of London or the fact that "Death to the West" has now become the Iranian equivilent of the exclamation mark?!?[/QUOTE]

When they say 'Death to the West', a more correct translation would be "Death to a spiritually bankrupt, hypocritical system." Kind of like calling America "The Great Shiytan," not Satan as many believe it to be. Shiytan is a devil, but he is evil because he turned his back on God to pursue material wealth. Does it bother me? Of course it does. But they are words, whereas blowing up a subway is action.
What he is saying that even though we know that we helped to breed terrorists, we have not changed our behavior even after it backfired on us, and that is where the real crime is. We continue to do it now. We support the President of Uzbeck, who is a brutal dictator because he let us set up an airbase. We supported Savak, the uber-awful Iranian secret police who committed terrible atrocities. We support Saudi Arabia, even though they treat half of thier population like sub-humans. And on the other hand, we preach the Four Freedoms and Self-Determinism and Democracy. But, as they say, actions speak louder than words.



Complete hypocrite. Death to Islam!

So now I'm thinking;
How do I join anti-islam paramilitary groups? Are there any?

Did you not read how the article quotes the man saying "This is not Islam?" I understand why you are angry, I think we all are. But he is right. Islam does NOT condone the killing of innocents. He points this out, declaring that these acts were not created by Islam, yet you respond by saying death to Islam. That makes no sense to me. Sure, Death to al-Qaeda, where the responsibility lies. Sure, a change in the behavior of those who have helped to perpetuate such groups, in which we must accept some responsibility. But not to an entire religion and belief system. It just makes polarization.

He made some good points he made some bad points. Why is it that there always seems to be a blame the victim response now whenever something truely horrible happens?

Because obviously the U.S., the U.K., Israel, and any other free nation that defends itself militarily is evil. Haven't you heard? :rolleyes:

Honestly, no one should be surprised by this. It's the same response that came out of the Middle East after the attacks on the U.S. on 9/11, and it's the same rhetoric that's spewed every day about Israel. Evidently, there's no such thing as free will anymore. We're forcing these assholes to strap explosives to themselves and walk into crowds of civilians. I mean, come on, we only have to hear that shit coming from their own mouths and from liberals the world over, every God damn day. :headbang:

Actually I hadnt, I think you'll find I referred to it in a previous post. I feel it was the lesser of two evils.
And how many Iranians died due to this "lesser of two evils" ideology? How many of them were poisoned with deadly chemicals delivered by supporters in the UK, US, France. etc.?

I said that I hoped the wicked and corrupt Iranian government got what it deserved not Iran.
And how many innocent Iraqis have been killed by this same ideology towards the "corrupt" Iraqi government (read Saddam)?

Try actually reading what I have written before you seek to lecture me.
I did read what you wrote and I am not trying to lecture you. I am just trying to point out some facts that seem to get lost in the emotion of what is happening in the present.

London, the capital of my country, was attacked yesterday and they are still looking for the dead. For this man to dare to say this is an outrage and you will not persuade me otherwise.
You are entitled to your grief, by all means, but jumping on the retalitory hate bandwagon without weighing all the evidence, just leads to more wanton death and destruction. Somewhere the cycle needs to be broken?

BTW, my mother was born and raised in England. She lived through two world wars in her country, before coming to Canada. Although there was far more death and destruction to England during those wars, and she was terrorized by all the bombing, she never, ever, told me that she hated the Nazis, nor did she ever ask for revenge.

Unfortunately, I will proabably catch flak from this one, which is great, excersize your free speech, but just to say in advance: I DO NOT CONDONE ACTS OF TERRORISM. This includes 'collateral damage', (i.e. dead school children from a tomahawk cruise missile does count as terrorism) What happened in London is terrible and my heart is with those that have suffered in this attack.

See, there's the rub. There is a very big difference. Namely one of intent.

UK invited attacks so says Iranian Cleric

http://www.slate.com/id/115869/

...These writers don't exactly fault the United States. They simply argue that the attacks were a consequence of American behavior.

...Superficially, it's empowering to analyze every situation in terms of the consequences of our own acts.

...By accepting as a mechanical fact the enemy's aggressive response to our offending behavior, we surrender control of the most important part of the sequence.

...Now imagine yourself as a battered wife. Every so often, your husband gets angry and hits you. Why? You struggle to understand the connection between your behavior and his response. What are you doing that causes him to react this way? You hope that by identifying and avoiding the offending behavior, you can regain domestic peace and a sense of control. You're deluding yourself. As long as your husband decides which of your acts will earn you a beating, he's the master, and you're the slave.
...This is the problem with the consequentialist argument for revising U.S. policy in the Middle East.

http://www.slate.com/id/2099024

I'm no fan of President Bush. If you live in Britain, Poland, or Italy, you may feel the same way about your nation's leader. These governments have made plenty of mistakes in Iraq. But bringing death to Europe isn't one of those mistakes. The people who brought the death will bring it again. Take away their current reason, and they'll come back with another. They speak the language of harsh consequences because it's all they understand. You will have to start choosing the consequences of their acts, and stop letting them choose the consequences of yours.



http://www.slate.com/id/2090772

More to the point, one has to be prepared to support a campaign—or a cause—that is going badly. The president has been widely lampooned by many a glib columnist for saying that increased violence is not necessarily a cause for despair and may even be evidence of traction. He is, in fact, quite right to take this view, which was first expressed, to my knowledge, by Gen. John Abizaid. Those who murder the officials of the United Nations and the Red Cross, set fire to oil pipelines and blow up water mains, and shoot down respected clerics outside places of worship are indeed making our point for us. There is no justifiable way that a country as populous and important as Iraq can be left at the mercy of such people. And—here is my crux—there never was.

See, there's the rub. There is a very big difference. Namely one of intent.

I see what you mean but that doesn't really affect the dead does it ? I'm sure thats not much consolation just saying "wrong place wrong time, sorry"

See, there's the rub. There is a very big difference. Namely one of intent.
Ther most certainly is! However, a Tomahawk does NOT broadcast a recorded message that says "Hey! My target was this specifically. Sorry to everyone else." So to the people who are on the ground, there is not a difference. It was a hit with no warning, out of the blue, and innocent people were hurt. It is not a sanitary hands off approach to warfare, because people still suffer.
And the more I think about it, I am not certain that the intent is really any different.

When they say 'Death to the West', a more correct translation would be "Death to a spiritually bankrupt, hypocritical system." Kind of like calling America "The Great Shiytan," not Satan as many believe it to be. Shiytan is a devil, but he is evil because he turned his back on God to pursue material wealth. Does it bother me? Of course it does. But they are words, whereas blowing up a subway is action.

My point was slightly different in that this glorification of unlife has become not even common practice but actually built into language as what could almost be described as a punctuation mark. I mean, what would it be like if you decided to make your exclamations known by saying "Fall, God! Fall!" every other sentence and hoping that everyone knows that by that you mean that you want to bring an end to the system of global oppression of the many by the few? The chance that it would catch on in any society with sympathy for religion is slim at best, for one thing.

Words inspire action. Don't underestimate the power of speech and subtle persuasion; it's probably at least partially a cause of the situation we're in now. But, then again, a lust for revenge was also a contributor to the current situation, so let's hope the rest of my fellow Englishmen have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Oh, and, as an unrelated aside, I'd figured the US had abandoned that Self-determination stuff over the Palestinian state, but whatever.

He is technically right.. but the "Death to Britain, America, and Israel" was just fucking stupid.

My point was slightly different in that this glorification of unlife has become not even common practice but actually built into language as what could almost be described as a punctuation mark. I mean, what would it be like if you decided to make your exclamations known by saying "Fall, God! Fall!" every other sentence and hoping that everyone knows that by that you mean that you want to bring an end to the system of global oppression of the many by the few? The chance that it would catch on in any society with sympathy for religion is slim at best, for one thing.

Words inspire action. Don't underestimate the power of speech and subtle persuasion; it's probably at least partially a cause of the situation we're in now. But, then again, a lust for revenge was also a contributor to the current situation, so let's hope the rest of my fellow Englishmen have learned from the mistakes of the past.

Oh, and, as an unrelated aside, I'd figured the US had abandoned that Self-determination stuff over the Palestinian state, but whatever.

I was never diasagreeing with you!
As far as Self-Determinism, I suppose to make my argument clearer I could have said 'Self-Determinism, as long as it is a democracy in accords with the way we see the world.' It is one of those things that we preach, give people a hand in thier government, but what we actually do is quite different. Thats the difference I should have more carefully pointed out.

As for you and your fellow Englshmen, I am so terribly sorry that this had to happen. I really wish that it had not. My heart goes to those who have suffered because of this senseless waste.

Actually let me rephrase; he was right in saying that Al Qaida was a illegitimate child of US Imperialism, but I think he was wrong in saying the UK invited the attacks, and in saying Mossad did them.

This is noteworthy because clerics from other countries or religions can't be loonies. (http://www.godhatesamerica.com/)

Even if this particular Iranian cleric does make several good points.

Well he does make some points but it is drowned out by the hatred.

he does have a point, no matter how insensitive it is.

Well he does make some points but it is drowned out by the hatred.
He does indeed make some valid points which you saw fit not to post, and instead opted for the sensationalism. Having said that, what is your excuse?

He does indeed make some valid points which you saw fit not to post, and instead opted for the sensationalism. Having said that, what is your excuse?
Sensationalism? Did you not read the story from BBC. Taking words directly from it.

And how many Iranians died due to this "lesser of two evils" ideology? How many of them were poisoned with deadly chemicals delivered by supporters in the UK, US, France. etc.?


And how many innocent Iraqis have been killed by this same ideology towards the "corrupt" Iraqi government (read Saddam)?


I did read what you wrote and I am not trying to lecture you. I am just trying to point out some facts that seem to get lost in the emotion of what is happening in the present.


You are entitled to your grief, by all means, but jumping on the retalitory hate bandwagon without weighing all the evidence, just leads to more wanton death and destruction. Somewhere the cycle needs to be broken?

BTW, my mother was born and raised in England. She lived through two world wars in her country, before coming to Canada. Although there was far more death and destruction to England during those wars, and she was terrorized by all the bombing, she never, ever, told me that she hated the Nazis, nor did she ever ask for revenge.



You are, of course entitiled to your opinion and do make some very good points. The UK has screwed up in the past by supplying Saddam and are partly responsible for the death of the Iranians. We have made mistakes in the past, many mistakes. But does that give anybody the right to get on a bus, blow themselves up and kill 13 people? Does that give anybody the right to blow up a train station and murder so many innocent civilians? These people don't care about politics. All the points you've made don't even enter the mindset of these people. They just get on with it, and kill. They kill as many as they can. Men, dead, women, dead, children, dead, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu, dead. They kill without a second thought to who they're actually harming and what they're actually achieving. Most of the people who died probably marched against British envolvment in Iraq and they were still murdered along with all those others. This is a crime of unimaginable proportions and no Iranian cleric should try and justify what these people did.

Now I'm sure that you were not saying that you understood these people CanuckHeaven, but you can understand that people would still be upset by this terrible tragedy and may lash out at some of the points that you were making. That said, you are completley right about knee jerk reaction. There should be no revenge attacks on Muslim communities, most of which have suffered loss at the hands of these people too and who condemn this entirely. After all, if that happens, we're just lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorists.

Here is a nice link reminding everyone of who there friends are. What possibly can they be thinking. With an angry public wanting to find who is responsible. This is ill advised from any Iranian cleric to say this now at the least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665133.stm


Then they end this with Death To America, Israel and the UK.

I say Death to the Iranian Clerics who said these things.

Hahahaha. Good point about the UN. It's one of the most corrupt organizations in need of an overhaul! Oil for food scandal. The rape in Sierra Leone by UN 'peace keepers'. Ignoring the genocide in Darfur. Yes, it isn't very effective at all.

You are, of course entitiled to your opinionYes, freedom of speech is a wonderful part of democtacy.

and do make some very good points.
Thank you, and now I await the but.....

The UK has screwed up in the past by supplying Saddam and are partly responsible for the death of the Iranians.
Correct.

We have made mistakes in the past, many mistakes.Resulting in tens of thousands of deaths involving innocent men, women, and children.

But does that give anybody the right to get on a bus, blow themselves up and kill 13 people? Does that give anybody the right to blow up a train station and murder so many innocent civilians?
I see that we arrived at the but part of your response, but to answer your question......absolutely not. Two wrongs don't make a right, a point which some posters here fail to grasp.

These people don't care about politics.
They don't? Perhaps then you can explain why they are blowing people up?

All the points you've made don't even enter the mindset of these people.
And you know this how? What is in their minds?

They just get on with it, and kill. They kill as many as they can. Men, dead, women, dead, children, dead, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu, dead.
Yet the number they kill, pales into comparison to the number killed by daisy cutter bombs, cruise missles, and ordinance fired from tanks and air gunships?

They kill without a second thought to who they're actually harming and what they're actually achieving.
So, you are trying to paint these individuals as thoughtless, uncaring humans? Since you are claiming clairvoyance, just why are they blowing people up?

Most of the people who died probably marched against British envolvment in Iraq and they were still murdered along with all those others.
Pure speculation on your part?

This is a crime of unimaginable proportions and no Iranian cleric should try and justify what these people did.
You are right, there is no justification to these bombings, just as there is no justification to the invasion of Iraq by the US and UK, and just as there was no justification to the US and UK supplying Saddam with WMD during the Iran/Iraq war. These are ALL "crimes of unimaginable proportions".

Now I'm sure that you were not saying that you understood these people CanuckHeaven,
Obviously not as well as YOU understand them?

but you can understand that people would still be upset by this terrible tragedy and may lash out at some of the points that you were making.
If they wish to lash out, that is their perogative, but before they do, they should understand, that I too am upset by this tragedy, and 9/11, and the invasion of Iraq. They should also keep in perspective that the vast majority of death and destruction is occurring in Iraq, and not in London or New York.

That said, you are completley right about knee jerk reaction.
There has been way too much of that on these boards, and I am appalled by some of the comments.

There should be no revenge attacks on Muslim communities,
I agree with you here.

After all, if that happens, we're just lowering ourselves to the level of the terrorists.Unfortunately, in many circumstances, that has already happened.

You are very obviously opposed to the Iraq war and I respect that. Your remark about me painting them as uncaring humans is true, because I just simply don't understand how any normal person can kill innocents without so much as a second thought. Maybe you can see the best in people (I know many people who see that) but I'm afraid I'm just not that kind of person. And when I say that they don't care about politics, obviously I have assumed to understand these lunatics. To explain more clearly what I meant, the IRA waged a terrorist campaign against the British for decades. Their aims were very clear and achieveable. For an independent Northern Ireland. ETA wagee a terrorist war against the Spanish, once again with clear political motive. I condone neither of these, but I'm just comparing. These attacks were designed to shock and then the demands would come. These people demand nothing, they have no clear objective and they just kill. They literally slaughter as many innocents as they can. If they do have an objective, it's to plunge the world into some insane extremist 'paradise' and that is just an immpossible idea.

And secondly, the remarks about the thousands killed by British and American forces in Iraq, that was the British Government, it gives them no right to walk into the middle of London and kill people, commuters trying to go about their daily business. I don't completley disagree with you. But people are very upset and you've got to accept that many people won't like you constantly trying to shift the blame onto the British Government for the attacks.

And the speculation that many of those who died might of marched against the Iraq War, there were about 1 million people who marched, so I think that there's a fair chance don't you?

Here is a nice link reminding everyone of who there friends are. What possibly can they be thinking. With an angry public wanting to find who is responsible. This is ill advised from any Iranian cleric to say this now at the least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665133.stm


Then they end this with Death To America, Israel and the UK.

Well, not to get all technical or anything, but the UK is at war are they not? And when you're at war, you don't just get to kill, you have to accept that your side will be attacked as well. Now don't go saying "But these were innocent civilians" because you know as well as I do that the Americans & co have killed innocent civilians in this war too. One is called terrorism the other collateral damage.. a rose by any other name is still a rose.

And if anyone says "Freedom" I shall surely scream!

Freedom! :D

Seriously though, I do know that, but who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the War on Terror. And yes it really is that black and white. The US and the UK have their faults, but they are not murderers. They overthrew Saddam because he WAS an evil man, despite the very dodgy evidence used to attack Iraq, and they overthrew the Taliban because they WERE sponsering terror. But what valid reason had the terrorists for 9/11. and I mean valid, not 'the US is just as bad as the terrorists' because both you and I know that this just isn't true. You can either live in an imperfect but free and reasonably fair capatalist world or a murderers paradise, where suggesting that the leadership may be wrong results in you being shot through the back of the head and dumped in a pit. It is really that choice and I know which I'd prefer.

Well, not to get all technical or anything, but the UK is at war are they not? And when you're at war, you don't just get to kill, you have to accept that your side will be attacked as well. Now don't go saying "But these were innocent civilians" because you know as well as I do that the Americans & co have killed innocent civilians in this war too. One is called terrorism the other collateral damage.. a rose by any other name is still a rose.

And if anyone says "Freedom" I shall surely scream!

There is one blaring difference in your example.

In the matter of "collateral damage" (great PC term eh? ) it is the unintended casualties from a mission at a "legitimate" target be it military; be it command and control.

London is not "collateral damage" as the target was the civilians.

To say they are the same suggests that the Beslan Attack was legitimate.

Welcome back BTW.

Excellent point. The Americans don't set out to slaughter innocent people. These freaks do.

There is one blaring difference in your example.

In the matter of "collateral damage" (great PC term eh? ) it is the unintended casualties from a mission at a "legitimate" target be it military; be it command and control.

London is not "collateral damage" as the target was the civilians.

To say they are the same suggests that the Beslan Attack was legitimate.

Welcome back BTW.

First, great to see you Black Forrest, it's been a while. :)

Ok, to the meat of this. Is it "unintended"? Or is it an excepted amount of innocents will die? I believe it's the second.

A great example is D-Day, when Eisenhower sent the allies in, they accepted that probably about 30% would be killed. They sent them anyway. Now I'll give you these were soldiers and not civilians, however the same applies with collateral damage. They realize that innocents are going to be killed, but that is just the price of war. So, I'm not sure how honest it is to say "unintended" as much as it's deemed "acceptable"

First, great to see you Black Forrest, it's been a while. :)

Ok, to the meat of this. Is it "unintended"? Or is it an excepted amount of innocents will die? I believe it's the second.

A great example is D-Day, when Eisenhower sent the allies in, they accepted that probably about 30% would be killed. They sent them anyway. Now I'll give you these were soldiers and not civilians, however the same applies with collateral damage. They realize that innocents are going to be killed, but that is just the price of war. So, I'm not sure how honest it is to say "unintended" as much as it's deemed "acceptable"

They are not the same. The expected civilian count is an estimate of civilians that are in the area. The matter of London, the plan was to kill civilians. The two are vastly different.

Even in your D-Day example, Eisenhower would have been a fool to call it off because some innocent French will die in the fighting. Acceptable losses are part of the plan. If D-Day was expected to have 50% or more casualties, then it would not have happened.

Observation: Can we can really use declared wars between nations as examples for dealing with terrorists.

Again, intended targeting of non-combatants vs unintended death of non-combatants.

Its an ideal wish that no civilian would ever die in a war. The only way that will happen is when man stops practicing war.

Finally, It's interesting that the Islamic terrorists target civilians and a school and people will justify it by saying What of the civilians the Americans killed in the fighting?

Yet, if the Americans targeted a Madrass, the outrage would be deafening.

They are not the same. The expected civilian count is an estimate of civilians that are in the area. The matter of London, the plan was to kill civilians. The two are vastly different.

Observation: Can we can really use declared wars between nations as examples for dealing with terrorists.

Again, intended targeting of non-combatants vs unintended death of non-combatants.

Finally, It's interesting that the Islamic terrorists target civilians and a school and people will justify it by saying What of the civilians the Americans killed in the fighting?

Yet, if the Americans targeted a Madrass, the outrage would be deafening.

Killing civilians is killing civilians... I mean the only difference is the rationalization one can argue. Perhaps if the "terrorists" had the same military capability this would not be the case, the same as if America was to change shoes with the "terrorists" would they not do the same thing? I think they would. As the old saying goes.. "All is fair in love and war" ;)

As for outrage against the American administration, is it not fair to say it's already there? Not just by "terrorists" but by the majority of the world's populace, 1st nations included?

Killing civilians is killing civilians... I mean the only difference is the rationalization one can argue. Perhaps if the "terrorists" had the same military capability this would not be the case, the same as if America was to change shoes with the "terrorists" would they not do the same thing? I think they would. As the old saying goes.. "All is fair in love and war" ;)

As for outrage against the American administration, is it not fair to say it's already there? Not just by "terrorists" but by the majority of the world's populace, 1st nations included?

Rationalization? No it's justification that is being argued in many cases. The Brits and the Americans killed Civilians so the terrorists were right to kill Civilians in London and New York. Just, as they were also justified in killing the children of Beslan.

Rationalization is the process of accepting the fact that non-combatants are going to die in an operation.

As to trading places? I doubt the majority of Americans would do the same. Do you hear the americans talking about dying for the Glory of God? Even now do you hear any american rationalizing that Muslims practice Islam which it what the terrorists saying they are defending so all Muslims are legitimate targets?

Again, planned targeting of civilians is not the same a civlians caught in a combat zone.

First, great to see you Black Forrest, it's been a while. :)

Ok, to the meat of this. Is it "unintended"? Or is it an excepted amount of innocents will die? I believe it's the second.

A great example is D-Day, when Eisenhower sent the allies in, they accepted that probably about 30% would be killed. They sent them anyway. Now I'll give you these were soldiers and not civilians, however the same applies with collateral damage. They realize that innocents are going to be killed, but that is just the price of war. So, I'm not sure how honest it is to say "unintended" as much as it's deemed "acceptable"

Welcome back Steph;

WW II may not be the best example to cite when discussing limiting civilian casualties.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/civilian_casualties_of_world_war.htm
particularly when compared to military casualties;
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/military_casualties_of_world_war.htm
As you can see, the objective of defeating Imperian Japan and Nazi Germany took prescident over civilian casualties.
Today methods of targeting are far more accurate, however the primary objective remains the same - victory over an evil opponent.
Civilian casualties are always regrettable, but they are not always avoidable. War really IS hell.

Freedom! :D

Seriously though, I do know that, but who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the War on Terror. And yes it really is that black and white. The US and the UK have their faults, but they are not murderers. They overthrew Saddam because he WAS an evil man, despite the very dodgy evidence used to attack Iraq, and they overthrew the Taliban because they WERE sponsering terror. But what valid reason had the terrorists for 9/11. and I mean valid, not 'the US is just as bad as the terrorists' because both you and I know that this just isn't true. You can either live in an imperfect but free and reasonably fair capatalist world or a murderers paradise, where suggesting that the leadership may be wrong results in you being shot through the back of the head and dumped in a pit. It is really that choice and I know which I'd prefer.

Well said, heres a cookie

Excellent point. The Americans don't set out to slaughter innocent people. These freaks do.
If that is the case, then I wonder why they didn't fly the planes into a Baseball Stadium for example.

If that is the case, then I wonder why they didn't fly the planes into a Baseball Stadium for example.


Because flying a jetliner into a target on the ground is very hard. Flying into a tall building is much easier.

Because flying a jetliner into a target on the ground is very hard. Flying into a tall building is much easier.
Are you serious?
You don't think the political value of bringing down a landmark like that had anything to do with it? That they really are only after killing people?

Because flying a jetliner into a target on the ground is very hard. Flying into a tall building is much easier.


Oh yeah, and how many airplanes have YOU flown into either?

(Relax, I couldn't resist!) :)

Are you serious?
You don't think the political value of bringing down a landmark like that had anything to do with it? That they really are only after killing people?

Did I say that?

I was just stating what I heard from a talk about why didn't they hit the White House, the Senate, etc. The people said that it sounds easy but in reality flying a great big bath tub like a jumbo jet at a target on the ground is rather hard.

The two towers provided a greator chance of sucess and they were also a symbol.

Oh yeah, and how many airplanes have YOU flown into either?

(Relax, I couldn't resist!) :)

Does a video game count? :p

-snip-
They did hit the Pentagon though...
And wasn't that last plane meant to go to Washington as well, White House presumably?
What I mean is however, they tried to bring down the landmark, the people in it were "collateral damage". Just like the US wants to hit a factory, and the people in it get killed. Certainly not nice...but I don't think that turns them into crazy freaks that only want to kill, burn and destroy.

Observation: Can we can really use declared wars between nations as examples for dealing with terrorists.

Finally, It's interesting that the Islamic terrorists target civilians and a school and people will justify it by saying What of the civilians the Americans killed in the fighting?


Terrorists that don't actually claim to represent a country but claim to represent a religion. It would be very difficult to declare war on them other than declaring war on said religion which is a complete farse.

More intersting would be why the terrorists targeted a major muslim population in London. They must have known they were there and terrorists that dealt n the complexity of these attacks do not make mistakes.

Here is a nice link reminding everyone of who there friends are. What possibly can they be thinking. With an angry public wanting to find who is responsible. This is ill advised from any Iranian cleric to say this now at the least.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4665133.stm


Then they end this with Death To America, Israel and the UK.
And this comes as some sort of surprise to you? Oh yeah, it was our fault for not endorsing the new Caliphate and converting to Islam! :rolleyes:

Well said, heres a cookie

Woohoo. Thanks!

Woohoo. Thanks!
I think the cookie-distribution in this thread is too dependent on political viewpoints...maybe someone needs to be bombed! ;)

LOL. Cookies for everybody who makes a valid or invalid point. That way nobody will feel left out!

Does a video game count? :p

Remember the days of Microsoft Flight Simulator when you could do that?
But trying to land the 747 on the carrier deck was alot more fun.

Remember the days of Microsoft Flight Simulator when you could do that?
But trying to land the 747 on the carrier deck was alot more fun.
Can't you anymore?
I stopped playing after FS98...

Freedom! :D

Seriously though, I do know that, but who are the good guys and who are the bad guys in the War on Terror.
Depending which side of the fence a person is on, they know who the "good guys" are and who are the "bad guys".

Here is the dilemma. What happens when the "good guys", who you are rooting for, end up doing something extremely bad, perhaps even worse than the actions of the "bad guys"? When an action assails my core beliefs, I need to step back and re-assess the situation, and it gives me an uneasy feeling.

The world pleaded and marched against a war with Iraq, and the message fell on deaf ears. This saddens me and millions of others around the globe. I cannot condone the death and destruction that has occurred in Iraq, nor do I consider it a part of the war on terror.

And yes it really is that black and white.
Yes it is "black and white", and two wrongs do not make a right.

The US and the UK have their faults, but they are not murderers. They overthrew Saddam because he WAS an evil man, despite the very dodgy evidence used to attack Iraq,
To kill that many people and cause that amount of destruction is not worth it to get one man. Iraq has become a hell hole of death and destruction and it sickens me.

and they overthrew the Taliban because they WERE sponsering terror.
Yet Osama remains at large, and terrorism is increasing not decreasing. Is Afghanistan any better off, would surely be a good discussion?

But what valid reason had the terrorists for 9/11. and I mean valid,
Apparently, the reasons that the "terrorists" targeted the WTC was to financially cripple the US and to a large degree, they succeeded?

The reasons that they targeted the Pentagon are extremely obvious.

Apparently the other airliner was meant for the White House, but it never got there.

They are all valid reasons?

not 'the US is just as bad as the terrorists' because both you and I know that this just isn't true.
You make an assumption that is unsupportable? The US has caused an unacceptable level of death and destruction in Iraq, and has fueled an increase in worldwide terrorism.

Yet, was Iraq a threat to the US? Was Iraq involved in 9/11? The people of the world don't agree.

You can either live in an imperfect but free and reasonably fair capatalist world or a murderers paradise, where suggesting that the leadership may be wrong results in you being shot through the back of the head and dumped in a pit. It is really that choice and I know which I'd prefer.
Yes, it is about "freedom", and my soul will always be "free", and not for sale, wherever I may be.

They did hit the Pentagon though...
And wasn't that last plane meant to go to Washington as well, White House presumably?
What I mean is however, they tried to bring down the landmark, the people in it were "collateral damage". Just like the US wants to hit a factory, and the people in it get killed. Certainly not nice...but I don't think that turns them into crazy freaks that only want to kill, burn and destroy.

Well they did slide into it. Not a direct hit. Hitting it dead on is harder then flying into a building.

As to the people inside being "collateral damage?" They can't really be labeled that as it is a military building. Collateral damage would have been non-combatants that happened to be walking by the building.

Still they are crazy freaks that want to kill, burn and destory. They took a plane full of people, and killed them in a fireball in an attempt to destroy a building.

The creatures that did this would not hesitate to set off a nuke if they had one.

Id like to invite Iran to become a proper nation.

It was a proper nation until the batshit Ayatollah Khomeini took over, no thanks to Jimmy Carter.

I should never have listened to Jimmy Carter.

President Carter betrayed the Shah and caused a power vacuum that will soon be filled by Soviet-trained agents and religious fanatics who hate America.

Have you guys even read the article ?

Most of what this guy is saying is true.
We created Al-Qaida's leadership is order to fight Russia.
We created Saddam Husssain to fight Iran.

And aside from the rhetoric, this is one person's opinion in Iran.
Not necessarity the opinion of all... so why blame Iran... blame
the cleric...

Its like saying the opinion that Durbin made a few weeks ago
spoke for all of America.

There will never be peace without Justice. As long as countries, super powers, etc... go around teh world messing with foreign countries they should not be shocked if people mess with them in return.

I truely thought that after 9/11 we would get our act together and look for ways to make the world a better place. But instead we have become more arrogant, and are now spiraling out of control to the point of no return. Unless we can find a way to live and let live, and work thing out off the battlefield, death and destruction for everyone is going to be the result

There will never be peace without Justice. As long as countries, super powers, etc... go around teh world messing with foreign countries they should not be shocked if people mess with them in return.

I truely thought that after 9/11 we would get our act together and look for ways to make the world a better place. But instead we have become more arrogant, and are now spiraling out of control to the point of no return. Unless we can find a way to live and let live, and work thing out off the battlefield, death and destruction for everyone is going to be the result

Ahh an idealist. Didn't know your kind was still around. :p

Well it's a nice thought but we are a ways from ever doing that.

As my history prof liked to point out. There have been 6000 wars in the last 2000 years. Man likes to fight.

As my history prof liked to point out. There have been 6000 wars in the last 2000 years. Man likes to fight.
More likely that men are willing to sacrifice other men to get what they want from yet other men. I don't recall Saddam wanting to fight Kuwaitis himself.

Ahh an idealist. Didn't know your kind was still around. :p

Well it's a nice thought but we are a ways from ever doing that.

As my history prof liked to point out. There have been 6000 wars in the last 2000 years. Man likes to fight.
And what has man learned from these 6,000 wars? Exactly what has history taught us?

Shall we remain rooted in the past, or should we learn from the past and build a better world?

And what has man learned from these 6,000 wars? Exactly what has history taught us?

Shall we remain rooted in the past, or should we learn from the past and build a better world?

I think the basic premise is that man likes to control his surroundings, man likes to use up his resources. Only problem now is that the sandbox has become the world.

More likely that men are willing to sacrifice other men to get what they want from yet other men. I don't recall Saddam wanting to fight Kuwaitis himself.

LOL. The most truthful and classic posting of the day. Well done.

I think the basic premise is that man likes to control his surroundings, man likes to use up his resources. Only problem now is that the sandbox has become the world.

Yes this is very true. nicely said.

And what has man learned from these 6,000 wars? Exactly what has history taught us?

Shall we remain rooted in the past, or should we learn from the past and build a better world?

Man is a child since so many work from the principle of I, me and mine. As long as man operates from that principle can a better tomorrow be built?

As long as the concept of profit is held holy; there will always be war and suffering.

I think the basic premise is that man likes to control his surroundings, man likes to use up his resources. Only problem now is that the sandbox has become the world.

Exactly! :D

War is a by-product of man. There will always be someone who wants to fight, world peace is an illusion held by the optimistic. It's just part of our wholly psychotic nature!

War is a by-product of man. There will always be someone who wants to fight, world peace is an illusion held by the optimistic. It's just part of our wholly psychotic nature!
Such a cynical and pessimistic attitude generates zero hope for the future of our children, and mankind as a whole.

The Great War resulted in 10,000,000 deaths. WW 2 resulted in 55,000,000 deaths and WW 3 will result in a number of deaths greater than the last world war, if not the destruction of all mankind?

We should all just shrug our shoulders at the deaths of those who died at the WTC, the bombings in London and Spain, and the ongoing carnage in Iraq. We should all just except these actions as being part of man's "psychotic nature"?

Yes, I would rather hang on to my "illusion" of peace and hope. I believe those goals give me a greater sense of freedom, then those who are consumed by fear, hate and anger.

Hey, hey, hey, calm down. I'm a peaceable guy. The point I was trying to make (unsucessfully judging by the reaction) was that a madman is born every minute. You are never going to get to a stage where everybody on Earth wants an end to war. But we can reduce it by keeping warmongering weirdos out of power. We're not doing too badly at the moment. There are now less homicidal maniacs in power than there was 50 years ago.