he aint my idol by a long shot, i dont agree with him; but not for your reasons. I have different one's. That kind of difference opinion maybe unheard of for you.
I aint a bush supporter by a mile, but do i agree with american action on islamic fundamentalism, Yes i do. Like it or not, Islamic fundamentalism, is a threat to my country, my way of life and world's as it is now. You moderate muslims arent doing anything for it, so i guess it is our job.
This is like saying I don't support Hitler; but I do agree with his actions on Jews. There is no such thing as Islamic fundamentalism; "Islamic fundamentalism" was first coined by "American historian Ira Lapidus" which is fundamentally inaccurate.
If you do the survey of the Muslim world, past and present, would show that among Muslims there is not and there has not been a group or a sect which called itself fundamentalist. I do not know of any Muslim group or sect which called some other group by this name.
American leaders in general, have come to look at Islam or some Muslim groups in the image of their fundamentalists.
It has not been necessary for some Muslim groups to congregate at some lakeside resort and pronounce themselves Islamic fundamentalists.
Western secularists chose to assume this responsibility themselves.
In doing this, they picked a bewildering array of a wide range of ideological, narrowly nationalistic and even revengeful groups in the disparate Muslim world suffering from a lack of communication, coordination and a sense of unity.
It seems that whosoever in the Muslim world evokes the name of Islam outside of the mosques is liable to be called Islamic fundamentalist. Consequently, whenever and wherever a Muslim group is fighting for its survival or its constitutional and basic human rights, whether in Palestine, in Kashmir, in Mindanao or in Bosnia, has been called Islamic fundamentalist - even by Radovan Karadizc, the now notoriously famous mass murderer and ethnic cleanser of Bosnia and Hertzegovina.
If you are talking about 9/11 hijackers or bombers then they have been already proven wrong by the scholars; Of course media never shows this, They always try to portray Islam in their own twisted way.
How is it that the Muslim genocide in Kashmir at the hands of the highly trained and very well equipped Indian army has been only whispered about but never brought to public attention by the Western elites of the media and public policy?
Anyways my question is,
Can you really compare Bush to a Hitler, A person who is responsible for the Genocidal deaths of 6 million jews. Hitler was never blamed for the deaths by war, cuz it is war. At the same time bush never did an ethnic cleansing.
It is just leftist propaganda. For nations to exist and proceed in a moderate secular manner, these medival freaks have to be taken down.
Two elements are necessary to commit the crime of genocide:
1) the mental element, meaning intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, and
2) the physical element, which includes any of the following: killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births; or forcibly transferring children to another group.
Researchers from Johns Hopkins University collected data for a study which concluded 655,000 additional deaths were caused by the military war, and things have only gotten worse since then. Then consider that the economic war killed an additional 500,000 Iraqi kids under the age of five during only the first seven years of sanctions which were in force for a dozen years, according to a 1999 U.N. report.
now tell me Adux; The economic war had an intent to destroy Iraqi people, most of them were children, Doesn't that constitutes as genocide?; Did you forgot the use of UP & DU on Iraqi civilians?; Don't you remember the innocent people killed by the direct actions of our fuhrer Bush.
Of course Adux the government didn't intend to commit genocide, it just sort of happened. The Iraqis kept getting in the way while they were trying to spread "freedom". Mistakes were made as Bush was building the "democracy", but surely no genocide was intended. After all, US is the international decider of what is and what isn't genocide, and we know full well that intent is a requirement.
It was only "collateral genocide".
