[quote]orion wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Look to the majority of the planet. Once they get a sniff of Democracy, there’s no going back.
JeffR
That remains to be seen.
[/quote]
Agreed. As our freedoms ebb in America, Americans seem to have very little care…
We hardly even vote anymore. Only three democratic nations have a lower voter turnout by percentage of eligible voters than the original democratic superpower. How the hell does that happen?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
(text)
Get my point?[/quote]
What point when you ignored the entire content of my post?
What “foreign policy” of the Buddhists caused them to come under the violence of Islamists?
What “foreign policy” of African Christians and animists elicited the response of the angry and hate-filled Islamists?
My point? The hate is there, not as a reaction or a consequence of what anyone else does, but the hate exists by its own independent force - because, if it didn’t, “hatred” on the Islamic street would only be reserved for nations with big meanie foreign policies.
But do the math - they hate everyone. They hate Westerners who “inflitrate” their society with trade. They hate Jews who do nothing to them. They hate Buddhists who have no “foreign policy” to speak of or to naively blame. They hate and want to dominate African tribesmen who can never be “imperialists”.
Take away the abstract “US foreign policy” and what are you left with? The exact same thing as when you don’t remove “US foreign policy” - Muslims desirous to dominate and subjugate.
If America completely withdrew from the ME, and we saw the inevitable - Islamist elements trying to overrun anything in their way to dominance - what excuse would you then have for the atrocities they would commit?
Because they are poor? Sooner or later the materliast assumptions deny plausibility and you are left standing where you started - a culture that is has only itself to blame.
Why is there always a desire to press the conceit that these brutalizers do what they do because of extraneous, sociological reasons, and never make them take responsibility for the awful things they do?
Weird.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, gdol.
Quick question: Are you saying that the terrorists aren’t using innocent civilians and sacrosanct locations as shields?
Don’t want to put words in your mouth.
JeffR
You misread. He meant they’re obviously doing it, and it’s obviously wrong. That’s not debatable.
You totally misinterpreted his statement.
[/quote]
Hey, Beowolf.
I think you may be correct. However, that opens up another can of worms. He asks, “what do you expect them to do?”
That sounds like legitimizing these tactics.
There is no excuse for those tactics. Nothing can justify acting like scum.
JeffR
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, gdol.
Quick question: Are you saying that the terrorists aren’t using innocent civilians and sacrosanct locations as shields?
Don’t want to put words in your mouth.
JeffR
You misread. He meant they’re obviously doing it, and it’s obviously wrong. That’s not debatable.
You totally misinterpreted his statement.
Hey, Beowolf.
I think you may be correct. However, that opens up another can of worms. He asks, “what do you expect them to do?”
That sounds like legitimizing these tactics.
There is no excuse for those tactics. Nothing can justify acting like scum.
JeffR
[/quote]
Actually, I think you’re misinterpreting that too.
They’re scum, so why wouldn’t you expect them to use scum tactics like hiding behind innocent civilians?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
(text)
Get my point?
What point when you ignored the entire content of my post?
What “foreign policy” of the Buddhists caused them to come under the violence of Islamists?
What “foreign policy” of African Christians and animists elicited the response of the angry and hate-filled Islamists?
My point? The hate is there, not as a reaction or a consequence of what anyone else does, but the hate exists by its own independent force - because, if it didn’t, “hatred” on the Islamic street would only be reserved for nations with big meanie foreign policies.
But do the math - they hate everyone. They hate Westerners who “inflitrate” their society with trade. They hate Jews who do nothing to them. They hate Buddhists who have no “foreign policy” to speak of or to naively blame. They hate and want to dominate African tribesmen who can never be “imperialists”.
Take away the abstract “US foreign policy” and what are you left with? The exact same thing as when you don’t remove “US foreign policy” - Muslims desirous to dominate and subjugate.
If America completely withdrew from the ME, and we saw the inevitable - Islamist elements trying to overrun anything in their way to dominance - what excuse would you then have for the atrocities they would commit?
Because they are poor? Sooner or later the materliast assumptions deny plausibility and you are left standing where you started - a culture that is has only itself to blame.
Why is there always a desire to press the conceit that these brutalizers do what they do because of extraneous, sociological reasons, and never make them take responsibility for the awful things they do?
Weird.[/quote]
Buddhists aren’t half a world away.
Islam, right now, is expansionist. I get it.
But the terrorists who hate US are obviously not trying to gain land for Islam. Regardless of what they say, they are still using American ‘aggression’ to recruit NORMAL Muslims into being extremists.
Without our foreign policy less Muslims would hate America. A lot less.
Would they have a smaller extremist problem? Probably not.
Would WE have a smaller Muslim extremist problem? You bet your ass we would.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Would WE have a smaller Muslim extremist problem? You bet your ass we would.[/quote]
If we changed our foreign policy, then the Muslims would want to destroy us because we are a majority Christian nation.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, gdol.
Quick question: Are you saying that the terrorists aren’t using innocent civilians and sacrosanct locations as shields?
Don’t want to put words in your mouth.
JeffR
You misread. He meant they’re obviously doing it, and it’s obviously wrong. That’s not debatable.
You totally misinterpreted his statement.
Hey, Beowolf.
I think you may be correct. However, that opens up another can of worms. He asks, “what do you expect them to do?”
That sounds like legitimizing these tactics.
There is no excuse for those tactics. Nothing can justify acting like scum.
JeffR
Actually, I think you’re misinterpreting that too.
They’re scum, so why wouldn’t you expect them to use scum tactics like hiding behind innocent civilians?[/quote]
Point taken.
JeffR
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, gdol.
Quick question: Are you saying that the terrorists aren’t using innocent civilians and sacrosanct locations as shields?
Don’t want to put words in your mouth.
JeffR
You misread. He meant they’re obviously doing it, and it’s obviously wrong. That’s not debatable.
You totally misinterpreted his statement.
[/quote]
Thank you. Though I thought I was pretty clear.
[quote]JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, gdol.
Quick question: Are you saying that the terrorists aren’t using innocent civilians and sacrosanct locations as shields?
Don’t want to put words in your mouth.
JeffR
You misread. He meant they’re obviously doing it, and it’s obviously wrong. That’s not debatable.
You totally misinterpreted his statement.
Hey, Beowolf.
I think you may be correct. However, that opens up another can of worms. He asks, “what do you expect them to do?”
That sounds like legitimizing these tactics.
There is no excuse for those tactics. Nothing can justify acting like scum.
JeffR
[/quote]
It’s not legitimizing anything, it’s saying accept the world as it is, something that seems to be very hard for Republicans to do these days.
Guerrillas, partisans, insurgents, terrorists, etc. will always hide among the people. That’s the way they survive. That’s true of “good” guerrillas (American Revolution, Contras, French Resistance) and bad ones (Hizbullah, Viet Cong, Al Qaeda). They hide among the people because that’s how they avoid being fixed in place and destroyed by the massive firepower of state armies.
This is especially true in Iraq, because it lacks inaccessible terrain (i.e. mountains) to shelter insurgents.
When guerillas hide among the people and our firepower kills the people, we are going to get the blame the majority of the time, because it’s our bombs. That may not be “right,” but it’s reality. The insurgents are the underdog, regardless of how evil their cause often is. We’ve fought in Iraq and Afghanistan about as humanely as possible (given the limitations of our firepower-heavy, manpower-light armed forces), but even that may not be enough in the 21st century.
Am I finally getting through to you Jeffrey?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
(text)
Get my point?
What point when you ignored the entire content of my post?
What “foreign policy” of the Buddhists caused them to come under the violence of Islamists?
What “foreign policy” of African Christians and animists elicited the response of the angry and hate-filled Islamists?
My point? The hate is there, not as a reaction or a consequence of what anyone else does, but the hate exists by its own independent force - because, if it didn’t, “hatred” on the Islamic street would only be reserved for nations with big meanie foreign policies.
But do the math - they hate everyone. They hate Westerners who “inflitrate” their society with trade. They hate Jews who do nothing to them. They hate Buddhists who have no “foreign policy” to speak of or to naively blame. They hate and want to dominate African tribesmen who can never be “imperialists”.
Take away the abstract “US foreign policy” and what are you left with? The exact same thing as when you don’t remove “US foreign policy” - Muslims desirous to dominate and subjugate.
If America completely withdrew from the ME, and we saw the inevitable - Islamist elements trying to overrun anything in their way to dominance - what excuse would you then have for the atrocities they would commit?
Because they are poor? Sooner or later the materliast assumptions deny plausibility and you are left standing where you started - a culture that is has only itself to blame.
Why is there always a desire to press the conceit that these brutalizers do what they do because of extraneous, sociological reasons, and never make them take responsibility for the awful things they do?
Weird.[/quote]
You realize two things can be true at the same time right? Islam can have serious, maybe critical dysfunctions, and be lashing out at being left behind by the world, and U.S. foreign policy can still be creating more enemies than it kills. The two are not mutually exclusive.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Without our foreign policy less Muslims would hate America. A lot less.
Would they have a smaller extremist problem? Probably not.
Would WE have a smaller Muslim extremist problem? You bet your ass we would.[/quote]
Well put.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Without our foreign policy less Muslims would hate America. A lot less.
Would they have a smaller extremist problem? Probably not.
Would WE have a smaller Muslim extremist problem? You bet your ass we would.
Well put.[/quote]
So if one side decides to use terrorism as a weapon we should react by changing our foriegn policy and objectives?
Islamic extremism is nothing new. It’s more apparent because of the internet and 24 hr. news coverage. Al-Queda’s overseas operations have also brought it to the forefront.
A live and let live policy is perceived as weak in most of the world. Suitable in academia but not practical.
The enemy should not have a say in how we choose to deal with the rest of the world.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Buddhists aren’t half a world away.
Islam, right now, is expansionist. I get it.
But the terrorists who hate US are obviously not trying to gain land for Islam. Regardless of what they say, they are still using American ‘aggression’ to recruit NORMAL Muslims into being extremists.
Without our foreign policy less Muslims would hate America. A lot less.
Would they have a smaller extremist problem? Probably not.
Would WE have a smaller Muslim extremist problem? You bet your ass we would.[/quote]
Not necessarily. It would depend on whether we determine there is a good chance we need to deal with the extremists eventually - particularly in cases such as Afghanistan in which they have coopted a state. We could have had a much smaller Nazi problem if we dealt with it earlier rather than waiting for Hitler to rebuild the German war machine.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
It’s not legitimizing anything, it’s saying accept the world as it is, something that seems to be very hard for Republicans to do these days.
Guerrillas, partisans, insurgents, terrorists, etc. will always hide among the people. That’s the way they survive. That’s true of “good” guerrillas (American Revolution, Contras, French Resistance) and bad ones (Hizbullah, Viet Cong, Al Qaeda). They hide among the people because that’s how they avoid being fixed in place and destroyed by the massive firepower of state armies.
This is especially true in Iraq, because it lacks inaccessible terrain (i.e. mountains) to shelter insurgents.
When guerillas hide among the people and our firepower kills the people, we are going to get the blame the majority of the time, because it’s our bombs. That may not be “right,” but it’s reality. The insurgents are the underdog, regardless of how evil their cause often is. We’ve fought in Iraq and Afghanistan about as humanely as possible (given the limitations of our firepower-heavy, manpower-light armed forces), but even that may not be enough in the 21st century.
Am I finally getting through to you Jeffrey?[/quote]
There’s no iron law that states the people will always blame the state forces and support the guerillas. To the extent the guerillas/terrorists are terrorizing the people or trying to enforce unwanted Sharia practices, the locals can be converted to the cause. This is particularly true with foreign al Queda in Iraq. This seems to be what worked quite effectively in the Phillipines.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
It’s not legitimizing anything, it’s saying accept the world as it is, something that seems to be very hard for Republicans to do these days.
Guerrillas, partisans, insurgents, terrorists, etc. will always hide among the people. That’s the way they survive. That’s true of “good” guerrillas (American Revolution, Contras, French Resistance) and bad ones (Hizbullah, Viet Cong, Al Qaeda). They hide among the people because that’s how they avoid being fixed in place and destroyed by the massive firepower of state armies.
This is especially true in Iraq, because it lacks inaccessible terrain (i.e. mountains) to shelter insurgents.
When guerillas hide among the people and our firepower kills the people, we are going to get the blame the majority of the time, because it’s our bombs. That may not be “right,” but it’s reality. The insurgents are the underdog, regardless of how evil their cause often is. We’ve fought in Iraq and Afghanistan about as humanely as possible (given the limitations of our firepower-heavy, manpower-light armed forces), but even that may not be enough in the 21st century.
Am I finally getting through to you Jeffrey?
There’s no iron law that states the people will always blame the state forces and support the guerillas. To the extent the guerillas/terrorists are terrorizing the people or trying to enforce unwanted Sharia practices, the locals can be converted to the cause. This is particularly true with foreign al Queda in Iraq. This seems to be what worked quite effectively in the Phillipines.[/quote]
That’s not the issue at all, and I’ll happily agree with what you’ve written above. The point is that when the weapons of the occupying power kill civilians in the hunt for guerrillas, the people are generally going to blame the occupying power.
If the people are not disposed to broadly help the counter-insurgent, the odds that he is going to win are very low.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
If the people are not disposed to broadly help the counter-insurgent, the odds that he is going to win are very low.[/quote]
Is the opposite true, that if people don’t broadly support the insurgent than the odds that he is going to win are very low?
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Buddhists aren’t half a world away.[/quote]
What does this have to do with anything?
But they can recruit NORMAL Muslims just fine without feeding them a negative perception of US foreign policy. What was the foreign policy that led to the slaughter of 3000 people on 9-11?
What you suggest is appeasement. They will always justify their conduct while recruiting based on what the West does - and it works in the exact way blackmail works.
No matter what we do, they will opt for the line “if you don’t stop doing that, things will just get worse” - that is how they get what they want.
So where is your line, Beowolf? Where do you suggest we stop doing what they want on account that our actions don’t drive NORMAL Muslims into their camps and create more hatred?
Nonsense. What foreign policy? If there was no war in Iraq, there was still a war in Afghanistan. If there was no war in Afghanistan, we would still be supporters of Israel. If there was no support of Israel, we would be ripping off their oil.
When will you learn that no matter how much we try to manipulate this sloppy cause-and-effect you suggest, they will justify a reason to fight the West and NORMAL Muslims will happily join in?
And speaking of Afghanistan - that war has enraged plenty of Muslims. Should we not have gone into Afghanistan on account of making thousands of Muslims hate us?
You see, you keep contradicting yourself. The “extremist problem” is the fact that NORMAL Muslims can be duped into Islamic terror with no great effort. Your distinction of “extremists” and NORMAL Muslims is false - the appeal of deadly radicalism permeates the entire culture and little reason need exist for it.
Muslims in Islamic societies aren’t otherwise rational thinkers who finally decide they have “had enough” and join up to blow themselves up. The cultural DNA is already there for them to take up arms against the hated West, regardless of what we do.
Need proof? Look at all the NORMAL Muslims who aren’t terrorists who marched in the street to call for Rushdie’s head.
Stop giving this garbage that NORMAL Muslims sit around and get pushed over the edge by extreme US foreign policy. As usual, in true Leftist fashion, you “victimize” these individuals as being exploited by Islamist propagandists when they would otherwise be peaceful and tolerant. Horseshit. The culture is broken, and that goes for the legions of NORMAL Muslims who are ready to decapitate Rushdie for writing a book.
How much convincing do you think they need?
We will have a smaller Muslim extremist problem the moment we reach a point where Muslims look at one another and say “waging war against the West is a mistake - the cost is too high”.
All this touchy-feely theory about “addressing the root causes” is meaningless until the Islamic societies realize that war is not an answer to their self-inflicted problems. You - and others like you - constantly validate that mindset by routinely saying what the West’s “foreign policy” is the catalyst of them wanting to wage war (even though that still doesn’t explain why Buddhists and Africans have to submit to the Islamist yoke).
They never have to learn that outward war is a mistake or ineffective because the Left will always find some source of unfairness in the world to give the Islamists cover. Always. Thus, they have no reason to think that what they do is wrong - after all, they simply aren’t responsible.
Teach them the hard lesson of war. Till then, talk of winning hearts and minds is stillborn.
[quote]gdol wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
JeffR wrote:
Hey, gdol.
Quick question: Are you saying that the terrorists aren’t using innocent civilians and sacrosanct locations as shields?
Don’t want to put words in your mouth.
JeffR
You misread. He meant they’re obviously doing it, and it’s obviously wrong. That’s not debatable.
You totally misinterpreted his statement.
Hey, Beowolf.
I think you may be correct. However, that opens up another can of worms. He asks, “what do you expect them to do?”
That sounds like legitimizing these tactics.
There is no excuse for those tactics. Nothing can justify acting like scum.
JeffR
It’s not legitimizing anything, it’s saying accept the world as it is, something that seems to be very hard for Republicans to do these days.[/quote]
Oh, rubbish, gdol. Just for fun tell me what the (dnc) reality is today?
This should be fun.
I need to pin you down on this. Are you comparing the tactics used by al qaeda to Washington?
Let’s be very clear.
[quote]Revolution, Contras, French Resistance) and bad ones (Hizbullah, Viet Cong, Al Qaeda). They hide among the people because that’s how they avoid being fixed in place and destroyed by the massive firepower of state armies.
This is especially true in Iraq, because it lacks inaccessible terrain (i.e. mountains) to shelter insurgents.
When guerillas hide among the people and our firepower kills the people, we are going to get the blame the majority of the time, because it’s our bombs.[/quote]
Signed,
The Anbar Salvation Council.
[quote]That may not be “right,” but it’s reality. The insurgents are the underdog, regardless of how evil their cause often is. We’ve fought in Iraq and Afghanistan about as humanely as possible (given the limitations of our firepower-heavy, manpower-light armed forces), but even that may not be enough in the 21st century.
Am I finally getting through to you Jeffrey?[/quote]
gdol, remind me again what you saw in the democrats that made you feel they understood “reality?”
Was it their strong stance on national defense? Their commitment to intercepting al qaeda in the U.S.? Their steadfast support of the U.S. fighting soldier?
It seems you talk a lot about reality. However, you vote the adolescents into office.
Strange dichotomy of thinking.
JeffR
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Buddhists aren’t half a world away.
Islam, right now, is expansionist. I get it.
But the terrorists who hate US are obviously not trying to gain land for Islam. Regardless of what they say, they are still using American ‘aggression’ to recruit NORMAL Muslims into being extremists.
Without our foreign policy less Muslims would hate America. A lot less.
Would they have a smaller extremist problem? Probably not.
Would WE have a smaller Muslim extremist problem? You bet your ass we would.
Not necessarily. It would depend on whether we determine there is a good chance we need to deal with the extremists eventually - particularly in cases such as Afghanistan in which they have coopted a state. We could have had a much smaller Nazi problem if we dealt with it earlier rather than waiting for Hitler to rebuild the German war machine.[/quote]
Nazi’s the Muslim extremists are not.
Nazi’s convinced people to kill Jews because Jews were IN Germany.
If the Jews were in China, I highly doubt the Nazi’s could have convinced anyone (but the true crazies) to go on a Jew hunt.
[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Nazi’s the Muslim extremists are not.
Nazi’s convinced people to kill Jews because Jews were IN Germany.
If the Jews were in China, I highly doubt the Nazi’s could have convinced anyone (but the true crazies) to go on a Jew hunt.[/quote]
I wasn’t specifically referring to the Holocaust, but since you brought it up, I didn’t know Poland, the Netherlands and France were “in Germany” – at least, they weren’t when we could have gone in and made our eventual problem much smaller.