<<   <   Page 86 / 148   >   >>
Bill Johnson 12/5/2012 | 12:19:28 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom rafaelg,

Here is a short Bio and history snippet for you to ponder.

General "Black Jack" Pershing was born September 13th, 1860 near Laclede, MS. he died July 15th, 1948 in Washington, D.C.

Highlights of his life include:
1891 Professor of Military Science and Tactics University of Nebraska
1898 Serves in the Spanish-American War
1901 Awarded rank of Captain
1906 Promoted to rank of Brigadier General
1909 Military Governor of Moro Province, Philippines
1916 Made Major General
1919 Promoted to General of the Armies
1921 Appointed Chief of Staff
1924 Retires from active duty Education West Point.

Just before World War I, there were a number of terrorist attacks on the United States forces in the Philippines by Muslim extremists.

So General Pershing captured 50 terrorists and had them tied to posts for execution.
He then had his men bring in two pigs and slaughter them in front of the, now horrified, terrorists.
Muslims detest pork because they believe pigs are filthy animals.

Some of them simply refuse to eat it, while others won't even touch pigs at all, nor any of their by-products. To them, eating or touching a pig, its meat, its blood, etc., is to be instantly barred from paradise (and those virgins) and doomed to hell.

The soldiers then soaked their bullets in the pigs blood, and proceeded to execute 49 of the terrorists by firing squad. The soldiers then dug a big hole, dumped in the terrorist's bodies and covered them in pig blood, entrails, etc.

They let the 50th man go.

And for the next forty-two years, there was not a single Muslim extremist attack anywhere in the world.
Maybe it is time for this segment of history to repeat itself, maybe in Iraq? The question is, where do we find another Black Jack Pershing?

We have a luxury of religous freedom in the US, however, many others in the World do not. I have many muslim friends who actually support this war but it is Islam that ties the entire Arab world community together, not that they are all Arabic. Therein lies the problem. The majority of Middle-Eastern muslims despise anything and anyone not muslim. Theirs is a hatred that goes back many, many centuries.

Islam has always been a religion of violence. Not peace. From the beginning, its spread was accomplished through physical violence, bloodshed and war. Violence not only against non-Muslim infidels, but also against fellow Muslims. Much of Islam's spread in the world was the result of traders and Sufi missionaries, this is true. Yet the weaponry- scimatars and sabres, all through the art and symbolism of Islam, makes violence and war a central them of Islam. This cannot be denied. The Koran commands Muslims to make war, see below. In contrast, Jesus Christ taught meekness and pacifism, and also practiced it. Muhammad on the other hand both taught and practiced violence from the beginning. The Jewish scriptures show a censure of violence as well, even violence that had been ordered by God himself. For example, King David was not chosen to build the temple, but that task went rather to his son Solomon, because, the reason was given, that David had been a warrior and had shed blood.

The Koran (more properly, Qu'ran) commands Muslims to make war:

Surat 8, Al Anfal, "The Spoils of War, Booty," verse 65:

[8.65] O Prophet! urge the believers to war; if there are twenty patient ones of you they shall overcome two hundred, and if there are a hundred of you they shall overcome a thousand of those who disbelieve, because they are a people who do not understand.

Surat 2, Al Baqarah, "The Cow," verse 216:

[2.216] Warfare is ordained for you, and this an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.

Surat 2, Al Baqarah, "The Cow," verse 244:

[2.244] And fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah is Hearing, Knowing.

Surat 9, Al Taouba, "Repentance; The Immunity-Dispensation," verse 29:

[9.29] Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.

This means that Islam must conquer Jews and Christians, and if after being conquered they do not convert to Islam, then they must pay a tribute (head tax). You would either have to convert, or pay an "infidel tax."

It can accurately be said, that a Muslim who says that Islam is a religion of peace not war, is not a true Muslim. Islam is a religion that demands that its followers conquer all Jews and Christians. It wants world conquest. President Bush says, "We are not making war on Islam." Well, that is irrelevant, since Islam is initiating war in the first place. There is a war between Islam and those of us who are Jews or Christians, whether we "make" war or not. Islam perceives the USA as a Christian nation. (Like many abroad, they have wild misperceptions of America.)

The two biggest causes of conflict between Muslims are, one, the many thousands of different versions of the Qu'ran, the Muslim scriptures, and two, the cultural, literary, and linguistic differences between Persians and Arabs. The latter is discussed later on this page. The reason for the thousands of versions of the Qu'ran is that each household produced their own copy by hand. The only reason any family member had the ambition to learn to read and write, was so that he could make the family a copy of the Qu'ran. And usually at the end of their copy of the Qu'ran was placed their family tree.

This message is due to the ignorance and absurd pacifism I have seen on this tiresome LR thread. I hope that some of you find a little clarity from the above posting, quit arguing, and get back to technological matters. The majority of you are engineers, not theologians or politicians.

crapshooter 12/5/2012 | 12:19:27 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom netwizard wrote:

after the war and all the unrest in the middle east and southeast asia (Indonesia, Phillipines) will people like you and me feel comfortable or safe travelling abroad?


This is a good point. In my first post on this thread, I questioned what would happen if the U.S. decided to drop its role as the world's policeman and close its borders (essentially, take a "neutral" stance on the world stage). If this were the case, would some, most, all or none of the anti-American feelings that are prevalent in much of the world then dissipate? Would Americans feel safer traveling abroad? Maybe.

I am of the opinion that America's role as "top cop" is a necessary one. If a byproduct is some trepidation when I travel, then so be it.
rafaelg 12/5/2012 | 12:19:27 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom Bill,
Good insight, thank you. It proves that we need to see beyond what the media and the gov. are giving us. I am only interested in the truth. One can read any article and discern the opinions from the facts. Reading the passages (if they are accurate), any foreign form of government will fail. My point is:
If so, then don't use the excuses.

On the other note, no one has the privilege to tell anyone to quit. Sounds like a typical LUcent Manager. The "Get back to work undertones".
Rockyd 12/5/2012 | 12:19:25 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom Is B gonna tell the world how does the gold plated stuff taste.


rafaelg 12/5/2012 | 12:19:24 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom Check the hypocrisy here again...


Perhaps I can bring up the Bay of Pigs?
Like a soldier interviewed said:

"Be against the War but don't be against us"

It is easy to play Couch/Arm Chair Commander and be very detached from the suffering and sacrifice. After all, some of us just turn it OFF.

This is enough for me. A dead horse. On to something else.

Bill Johnson 12/5/2012 | 12:19:23 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom
The 7 Steps on How To Deal With "Peace" Activists

With the advent of the World Trade Center disaster and the military
actions against terrorism, many of us will encounter "Peace" activists
who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating
against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001 and the
ones who support them.
These activists may be alone or in gatherings...most of us don't know
how to react to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one
of their rallies, here are the proper rules for dealing with them.

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a
conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas.
They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the
people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They
will probably use many arguments, ranging from political, to
religious, to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in
the nose.
3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry
and they may try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings
about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter.
Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to
undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a
solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe
what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are
6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them
much harder. Square in the nose.
7. Repeat steps 2-6 until the desired results are obtained and the
idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting
victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is
totally unacceptable and must be dealt with.

"Outside of a dog, a book is man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read."
-- Groucho Marx
rtfm 12/5/2012 | 12:19:22 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom The seven steps lead me to just wonder what sort of equilibrium/outcome we want.

As Gandhi said, "An eye for an eye, and soon the world will be blind."

BTW, Gandhi was not the meek peacenik people believe. He advocated action against tyrany, and even active resistence to attackers (but only for defence). His views on WWII, where he was against Hitler, cover this. He didn't side with Hitler, despite a common "enemy": the UK. In Gandhi's mind, his goal was freedom from UK rule, not Death to Britishers.

Similarly, our goal should be increased domestic security, and world security if that is tied in. My wager is the 2 are linked. This war doesn't increase our security.


p.s. Your 7 steps have a logic to them that, if continued to "illogical" ends, would mean wholly unhealthy outcomes. A separate example. There is strong economic evidence (Viscusi, et. al) that smoking helps the GDP, as many people die younger than otherwise. Even factoring in healthcare costs, this reduces their other healthcare costs and reduces their social security etc. requirements. But what of quality of life? Heck, by the "logic" and mantra of GDP, people should just be "taken away" (sorry for the crudeness) after they retire.

A rather extreme example, but one similar to the extremeness of the 7 steps
Light_Headed 12/5/2012 | 12:19:19 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom There are several cases mentioned in the bible of right and holy wars justified in the name of God. There are documented facts that during the &#8220;white man&#8217;s move&#8221; across the US where missionaries were sent out to convert native American Indians and would kill them if they did not convert to Christianity. Taking one verse out of any religious document, you can prove nothing because it is based on the context and not just words alone. I follow the Christian faith, but all of these facts disturb me especially extremist views like bombing abortion clinics or other acts of violence claimed on the basis of religion.

Holy Bible example
Deuteronomy, Chapter 7: verses 1 - 5 which say: "When the Lord your God shall bring you into the land where you are entering to posses it, and shall clear away many nations before you, the Hittites and the Girgashites and the Amorites and the Canaanites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites, seven nations greater and stronger than you. And when the Lord your God shall deliver them before you, and you shall defeat them, then you shall utterly destroy them. You shall make no covenant with them and show no favour to them. Furthermore, you shall not inter-marry with them; you shall not give your daughters to their sons, nor shall you take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your sons away from following Me to serve other gods; then the anger of the Lord will be kindled against you and He will quickly destroy you. But thus you shall do to them; you shall tear down their alters and smash their sacred pillars and hew down their Asherim and burn their graven images with fire".

Every comment I have heard from true experts regarding Islam clearly state that Islam is a faith of peace which all religions promote; Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. So, I don&#8217;t buy your comments one bit. I have lived for 7 years in one of the highest Arab concentrations in America and never had a Muslim try and conquer me. Bill Johnson, you need to go back and do a lot of reading before you make na+»ve comments like that.

You should spend sometime here as well as other sites helping people understand Islam

Islaam is a religion of peace, harmony and submission to the laws of God Almighty.

The Prophet Muhammad endured torture, hunger and the killing of his loved ones by his enemies, but he remained a merciful person. In his most startling conquest of Makkah only four people died. In his 23 years of struggle for Islam, the total number of people who lost their lives from all sides was less than 2,000 in wars that were imposed on him and the Muslim community.

The word "Jihaad " means "Struggle", or to be specific, striving in the cause of God. Any struggle done in day-to-day life to please God is considered Jihaad. One of the highest levels of Jihaad is to stand up to a tyrant and speak a word of truth. Control of the self from wrong doings is the greatest Jihaad. One of the forms of Jihaad is to take arms in defense of Islaam or a Muslim country when Islaam is attacked. This kind of Jihaad has to be declared by the religious leadership or by a Muslim head of state who is following the Quraan and Sunnah.

Muslims are told to treat them with respect and justice and not fight with them unless they initiate hostilities or ridicule their faith. Muslim's ultimate hope is that they all will join them in worshipping One God and submit to His will.

Oh, and just because a person is an engineer doesn&#8217;t mean that they don&#8217;t have the right to speak their mind here on this site. Are theologians and politicians more qualified to talk about this subject? Give me a break. So what should we talk about? How crappy the telecom industry is right now? That is about as boring as predicting the outcome of this industry. Or should we talk about one of the most historic events happening in our lifetime? My vote is for the latter.


vwhitta205 12/5/2012 | 12:19:17 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom The core of all religions is to teach peace and understanding. My issue is with the people who use it to control the weak and further their own agendas.
While you make good points referring to the Christian right wingers who bomb abortion clinics there are some differences.
When people leave church or temple following a sermon they are not filled with anger towards a group of people. They are not told to fight on behalf of their beliefs against evil oppressors.
So explain why after on Fridays angry young men and women pour out of Mosques throughout the Middle East chating anti Western slogans and burning images of Pres Bush and Blair? Why are they filled with hate from a place that should teach peace and understanding?
Truth is they are uneducated and isolated peoples who are controled by their leaders who understand that if their countries modernize they will leave religion behind.
The Catholic church preaches against bith control and abortion for many reasons, not the least of which was the idea that more Catholics meant more money for the church.
Religion is big business, probably the second oldest in the world.
One issue has enraged me this morning. In a recent poll 1in 3 people in France hope that Sadaam wins this war. So 33% of a country we liberated wish for an evil dictator to win this conflict. Iraqis hide weapons in Mosques, schools, hospitals. They wear civilian clothes to baffle us, they use children as human shields yet the 33% of the people wish for them to win?
I also find it unbelievable that anyone, including Arabs, would believe that we are targeting civilians. What advantage would we have in attacking innocent people?
Optic_Dude 12/5/2012 | 12:19:16 AM
re: The Effect of War on Telecom vwhitta,

Let&#8217;s go back to 9/11. Why did the American media replay the planes crashing into the twin towers over and over again? Why do you need to see it 100 times and how could that not anger you? Anger you in the same way as the Arab media replaying over and over again pictures of innocent Iraqi civilians being killed or injured by US bombs. If a country like Syria claimed responsibility for 9/11, don&#8217;t you think people would protest in US streets and burn Syrian flags the same way people are burning US flags in the Middle East right now for protesting killing of innocent civilians? Don&#8217;t you see the similarities? Religion or not, the protests are primarily related to killing civilians but extremist are trying to capitalize on this event by fueling the crowds and calling for a holy war or some other religious cause for rising up.

So, not to defend people burning flags, but if you see this everyday on TV women and children it has to affect you. Imagine if American people were watching the same Arab media how different their perception might be.

What this means is that the media are biased and irresponsible in their reporting of details. They make judgements regarding what is considered &#8220;good reporting&#8221; and that is what you see on TV, whether it&#8217;s dead civilians or POW&#8217;s or a child shaking the hand of a soldier. Yesterday in America no one saw any of the 7 women that were killed in the van running through a checkpoint, but you can bet your money that the Arab media were trying as hard as possible to get pictures or film of the event. Is it right or wrong to show this? I would argue that everything should be shown to strongly remind people of how evil and sickening a war truly is. Show me everything and I will filter it myself and form my opinion and not be brainwashed or told what to think like essentially all TV media are trying to convey. The US administration and media like CNN want to present a humanitarian view to keep public opinion high and the administration in office. They thought keeping the TV&#8217;s on in Baghdad would help their cause, but they underestimated Saddam&#8217;s propaganda capability.

And to make matters worse, it clearly seems to the rest of the Arab world that the US is invading Iraq to take oil and not find WMD. I am hoping we quickly find WMD sources to prove to the rest of the world that this is true.
<<   <   Page 86 / 148   >   >>
Sign In