Gender, Race, Islam, & the War on Terror… Women’s Studies, look at link & tell me what yall think?

Question

Link:
http://www.workingtv.com/gender-race-islam.html

Did ANYONE bother to Veiw the videos that are within the webpage that I gave a LINK to (before giving an opinoin)?!?

"personally, I have no problem talking Islam flawed human rights issues but people must be not confused and mix the issue of the war on terror together.." That is percicly what the videos/confrance talks about; how the USA has missconstruded the two to fit it's cause... in order to justify and unjust war...

Answer 1

personally, I have no problem talking Islam flawed human rights issues but people must be not confused and mix the issue of the war on terror together..


Right-wingers not having legitimates or valid reasons for the illegal occupation or Iraq (nor the war Afghanistan) tend to use poor human rights of these countries as an attempt to justify a war meanwhile the underlying reason for their war is the control of oil and oil markets..

If you recall in the US the religious right went all out to counter gay marriage, the issue having been seen equally if not more important than the War in Iraq where countless of Iraqis died and more lives in a stituation that is worst than under secular Saddam hussein..

If you note the same strategy of gender race and Islam is being used against Iran by our right-wingers. First the US is trying to create an Imaginary Threat then it whinnes about human their rights..the primary human right of Iranian is the right not to be murdered and SLAUGHTERED, so this is my opinion, Iran is a country of 68 million people , I am unwilling to destroy their country and sacrifice any Iranians including elders, beautiful women and children of Iran because
the US here would like to impose a democracy it overtrew 5o years ago..

the truth is the US does not want true democracy in these region most of these people would elect a theocracy..

I would reform human rights in the US before reforming other countries.

here are quote from C Spannos :

he current "War on Terror" is a project of the US Empire and is a war based on lies and myths. The motive was to create a long-term war to ensure that elite concentrations of wealth and power would not be threatened, and to scare populations into accepting policies benefiting the rich and powerful. Seen in this light, Empire is used as a conduit for maintaining and increasing elite wealth, power and privilege; and war is the State's weapon to achieve these aims. Just as the current "War on Terror" is an immoral war based on lies and myths, history is full of wars of conquest and barbarism. It's the duty of an anti-war movement to raise consciousness and provide insight highlighting that not only is the current war immoral and wrong, but all war is immoral and wrong, and that war has many structural sources. So, we're faced with the task of providing vision for what a world without war would look like and how to get there.
War is the product of many things and these things have their own forces and institutions, all of which have their roots in the underlying structures of society: militarism, capitalism, imperialism, racism, sexism and centralized political power, etc. Unless we address the root causes of war, the imperial wars of today and tomorrow will continue to rear their ugly heads into the future. Without exposing these structural sources of war, we face the very real prospect of fighting and resisting one war after another, without ever achieving victory.

A so called "War on Terror" is being waged by the most militarily powerful country on earth. The "War on Terror" is a war for Empire. It's primarily only one country waging war and this war is of Cold War proportions. (4) The world spends some $1,083 billion annually on military expenditures. The US accounts for over half of that figure alone and has a military budget 8 times larger than that of the second runner up, China. (5) The material costs of Empire are high. These material costs are distributed throughout society with a small elite escaping their negative effects and reaping the material reward. The social costs of war and Empire are perhaps impossible to imagine -- all the training, skill and talent being used to wage war, to become killers and the killed. It seems difficult for the mind to grasp this social cost, even for the current "War on Terror", much less for a distant war from a distant past.

Regarding wars of "Humanitarian Intervention", i.e. the 1999 NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia and Kosovo, a common rational in these wars, as in many wars, is that the civilian population of one country must be saved i.e. from "atrocities against civilians", "ethnic cleansing", or a from a "modern day Hitler", etc. The country is bombed and invaded and civilian deaths, often increasing in number after invasion, are labeled "collateral damage", "accidental" or "unavoidable". These civilian deaths actually amount to indiscriminant killings of men, women and children. Any country waging war based on "Humanitarian Intervention" bares the burden of responsibility to prove they're doing more good than harm. A record of US military interventions where civilians were killed in the process of saving civilians shows more harm then good. (1)

Coming back to the possibility that there may be an exception to my premise that all wars are bad, there may be, it's certainly possible. However, I'm stilling willing to go out on a limb to state that wars between nations have done exceptionally more harm than good, and going further, that the material and social costs of war are of such great proportions, robbing humanity of vast potential, that war must be stopped as soon as possible (it should have been stopped long ago). If there is any such truly "good", "just" or "humanitarian" war, I'm sure it would not provide justification worthy of enduring the material and social costs of war.

Answer 2

hey, isnt Canada where they arrested those terrorist that were going to bomb New York in that Al-Qaeda mosque?