[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
There are more than enough weapons in the area to mount a very nice rebellion.
No. All the weapons are in the hands of the dictators.
I see you never denied your connection with UBL. Very telling. He is a Saudi as I am sure you know.
You, Hedo, and HH are really REALLY funny.
[/quote]
Well, ARE you connected with UBL, except as both being Muslim?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The whole arabic ME should be quarantined. Let 'em kill each other.
[/quote]
interesting concept. If all the world left the ME to it’s own devices and did not meddle in their events, like Bin Laden wants, how long would you say it would be until there was total war there? Of course we’d have to include Israel in the mix. I wouldn’t give these people long before they start killing one another like they are doing in Iraq, like they did in Lebanon…
[quote]lixy wrote:
If you wanna do something useful, quit harassing the seculars and try putting a leash on the abuses of those rascals that you call “friendly regimes”.[/quote]
Bin laden said something like that, only in harsher terms.
Do you really think the regular folks would take over, or more zealous radicals? If Musharaf drops out, who do you think will be more popular, Bhutto, or the Red Mosque radicals?
Look at history: Shah fell, replaced by radicals. Saddam fell, radicals took over the streets, maybe the government. If the Royals in Saudi Arabia fall, do you think someone will take over who will be moderate? Hell no, they’ll scream “Great Satan, Jihad, Death to Israel and Long Live the Great Calphate!” and everyone will follow them like mindless sheep and then where will we be?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You sound a lot like UBL. Saw a documentary on him last night, and he was saying the very same thing. In fact, the idea was presented that he initiated the first WTC attack in retaliation for the US involvement in getting Iraq out of Kuwait.
It’s always someone else’s fault. [/quote]
Interesting that he would care that we kicked Saddam’s ass, being that he was “an enemy of al-qaeda” and “secular”. If you ask me, al-qaeda sound more like they could have been on his pay roll.
[quote]lixy wrote:
I just said that if you didn’t give the rascals weapons, maybe the “people” could stand a chance in rising up against them.[/quote]
we technically aren’t giving the rascals the weapons. We are arming the governments of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan to attack these radicals. If the “people” rose up against them, the “people” would be more radicalized elements.
Although I do not trust the governments of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, better to let them crack down on the radicals so they do not get the upper hand.
On a side note, how about Pakistan freeing the computer guru of al-qaeda? My God, what a travisty!
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
interesting concept. If all the world left the ME to it’s own devices and did not meddle in their events, like Bin Laden wants, how long would you say it would be until there was total war there? Of course we’d have to include Israel in the mix. I wouldn’t give these people long before they start killing one another like they are doing in Iraq, like they did in Lebanon…[/quote]
Haven’t you been reading Lixy’s posts? If the West “got out of” the Middle East, it would become an egalitarian paradise along the order of John Lennon’s “Imagine” (minus the “imagine there is [religion/heaven/etc.]” part).
Civil liberties would sprout like dandelions, no one would go to bed hungry, and Muslim scientists would cure every known disease - if only we would let them.
Kidding aside, I do believe the next step in foreign policy is to make the Middle East completely irrelevant, which will take time, but would be worth it.
However good a “quarantining” sounds, though, few would have the stomach to watch the implosion and resulting humanitarian crisis without getting re-involved at some level. Well, I assume we could all dicker on the terms, though - is it a “humanitarian crisis” if and when a defensive Israel sends the asking-for-it advancing hordes to meet their maker?
My opinion on this is, if the current governments of Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan and Pakistan fall, their dictators will be replaced by islamic fascist dictators like you’ve got running “democratic” Iran. These pro-western governments would then be anti-US and radical as all hell. We would be in a worse position then we are now. We would have 4 “Irans” instead of just one to deal with.
[quote]lixy wrote:
No. All the weapons are in the hands of the dictators.
[/quote]
Huh? How did the PLO, Black September, Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al-Qaeda (to name a few) get weapons? Are you saying that the dictators are funding the terrorists? And Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are funding them and Iraq under Saddam and Iran (were) are not?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Kidding aside, I do believe the next step in foreign policy is to make the Middle East completely irrelevant, which will take time, but would be worth it.
[/quote]
I would love to see this happen but is there really a way to make a region that supposedly has hundreds of billions of barrels of cheap oil irrelevant? Not to mention an enormous ownership of U.S. debt.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I’m sure if there ws an all out war on Israel - you would not have a bit of trouble finding an armed Arab. [/quote]
It happened before. Hundreds of millions of Arabs were up against a couple of millions Jews.
Guess how it turned out?
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Do you really think the regular folks would take over, or more zealous radicals? [/quote]
Here’s what I think. The “people” will get a chance to decide thru a democratic process. That is ALL that matters with regards to the thread.
Not exactly. The Shah didn’t “fall”. The radicals overthrew him, so it’s a logical extension that they took his place. And by the way, the current Iranian theocracy is still way ahead of the Shah’s regime when it comes to democracy.
Yeah, right! Saddam twisted his ankle and fell. Gimme a break!
Saddam was overthrown by foreign military intervention that put thousands and thousands of innocents in the morgue. It should come as no surprise that angry folks will take over the streets. I don’t thikn you realize that, but their relatives died under your bombs. Do you expect them to start a new page while you’re occupying them?
Listen here. Most of what you guys are complaining about and attributing it to Islam (destroying Buddha’s, chopping heads off, lack of freedom of religion, sexism…) has the Al Saud’s behind it. If not directly, then indirectly. They finance the extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.
What’s so hard to understand here? They are evil and they need to go!!! Maybe then, the Saudis could have a chance at establishing a working democracy.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
Huh? How did the PLO, Black September, Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al-Qaeda (to name a few) get weapons? Are you saying that the dictators are funding the terrorists? And Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are funding them and Iraq under Saddam and Iran (were) are not?[/quote]
Typical.
You amalgamate legitimate grassroots cause to liberate people from occupation with whackjobs bent on destruction for the sake of destruction.
Revise your question and get back to me.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
lixy wrote:
If you wanna do something useful, quit harassing the seculars and try putting a leash on the abuses of those rascals that you call “friendly regimes”.
Bin laden said something like that, only in harsher terms.
Do you really think the regular folks would take over, or more zealous radicals? If Musharaf drops out, who do you think will be more popular, Bhutto, or the Red Mosque radicals?
Look at history: Shah fell, replaced by radicals. Saddam fell, radicals took over the streets, maybe the government. If the Royals in Saudi Arabia fall, do you think someone will take over who will be moderate? Hell no, they’ll scream “Great Satan, Jihad, Death to Israel and Long Live the Great Calphate!” and everyone will follow them like mindless sheep and then where will we be?[/quote]
Amen to that.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Huh? How did the PLO, Black September, Abu Nidal, Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Al-Qaeda (to name a few) get weapons? Are you saying that the dictators are funding the terrorists? And Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia are funding them and Iraq under Saddam and Iran (were) are not?
Typical.
You amalgamate legitimate grassroots cause to liberate people from occupation with whackjobs bent on destruction for the sake of destruction.
Revise your question and get back to me.[/quote]
Every single one of these groups targets civilians for murder to induce political change. They do not target opposing militaries while trying to minimize civilian casualties.
Your support for terrorists in this post is obvious. You can deny it all you want but you are showing your true colors.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I’m sure if there ws an all out war on Israel - you would not have a bit of trouble finding an armed Arab.
It happened before. Hundreds of millions of Arabs were up against a couple of millions Jews.
Guess how it turned out?[/quote]
Which lends even more validity to my “lacking conviction” statement wrt the Arabic ME.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
The destruction of the Bimayan Buddha’s proves that American imperialism has nothing to do with this. Lets not forget that most of the Vietnamese are Buddhist and they certainly suffered from American imperialism. So destroying a Buddhist holysite as a blow against American imperialsm makes no sense. But desecrating Buddhist holysites and killing Buddhists for apostasy does. This is why in Thailand you see Muslims killing their Buddhist neighbors.
Whoever said that any of those acts were against “American imperialism”?
I brought up colonialism to try and explain why most Muslim-majority countries suffer from a lack of democratic institutions. That’s it.
I’ll tell you who got together to destroy those Bamyan Buddhas: The same sons of bitches I’ve always been condemning. That is, the Saudis, Pakistanis, and Talibans. If only the West would quit intervening there and giving the fundamentalist Saudi and Pakistani bastards weapons, maybe the “normal folks” could have a chance of overthrowing the rascals.
If you wanna do something useful, quit harassing the seculars and try putting a leash on the abuses of those rascals that you call “friendly regimes”.[/quote]
No Lixy the west did not cause the destruction of the Bimayan Buddhas. Muslim bigotry, Muslim predjudice, Muslim disrespect for other religions is what destroyed the Bimayan Buddhas. The Buddhas were destroyed because this is what happens when people who practice the one and only true word of god encounter other faiths.
By “normal folks” do you mean the ones who were out in the streets cheering and celebrating when the Buddhas were destroyed?
Pakistan was under an arms embargo at the time of the Buddhas being destroyed. And the Taliban wasn’t supported by the west.
You are in denial Lixy. You just will not admit that there is some real ugliness to your religion. If liberal pacifistsic muslims like yourself will not admit there is some problems in the idealogy of Islam, then it doesn’t bode well for the future.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
No Lixy the west did not cause the destruction of the Bimayan Buddhas. Muslim bigotry, Muslim predjudice, Muslim disrespect for other religions is what destroyed the Bimayan Buddhas. The Buddhas were destroyed because this is what happens when people who practice the one and only true word of god encounter other faiths. [/quote]
Sifu, pay a little bit of attention here. I never blamed the destruction of the Buddhas on anyone but the ones that actually financed and put in explosives. I added that it might help if the West didn’t support Musharraf and the Al-Sauds.
You ignored both statements and threw in a strawman.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Do you really think the regular folks would take over, or more zealous radicals?
Here’s what I think. The “people” will get a chance to decide thru a democratic process. That is ALL that matters with regards to the thread.
Look at history: Shah fell, replaced by radicals.
Not exactly. The Shah didn’t “fall”. The radicals overthrew him, so it’s a logical extension that they took his place. And by the way, the current Iranian theocracy is still way ahead of the Shah’s regime when it comes to democracy.
Saddam fell, radicals took over the streets, maybe the government.
Yeah, right! Saddam twisted his ankle and fell. Gimme a break!"
Just a matter of semantics.
Saddam was overthrown by foreign military intervention that put thousands and thousands of innocents in the morgue. It should come as no surprise that angry folks will take over the streets. I don’t thikn you realize that, but their relatives died under your bombs. Do you expect them to start a new page while you’re occupying them?
If the Royals in Saudi Arabia fall, do you think someone will take over who will be moderate?
Listen here. Most of what you guys are complaining about and attributing it to Islam (destroying Buddha’s, chopping heads off, lack of freedom of religion, sexism…) has the Al Saud’s behind it. If not directly, then indirectly. They finance the extremists in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and the Sunni insurgents in Iraq.
What’s so hard to understand here? They are evil and they need to go!!! Maybe then, the Saudis could have a chance at establishing a working democracy.[/quote]
Interesting argument over semantics.
We gave Iraq a chance to vote for their leaders. Bombs may have killed Iraqi relatives, but how many relatives were killed by fellow Muslims, fellow Iraqis who did not want democracy or infrastructure to work in Iraq. Easy to condemn the US when you’ve got insurgents and terrorists killing innocent civilians on a daily basis, killing politicians, blowing up mosques, killing imams, and assassinating anyone who would want to help the US better their situation from where it was under Saddam.
You can sit there and say “there weren’t any terrorists in Iraq under Saddam” and blame all the misery on the US, and never, ever lay any blame on the terrorists and insurgents who do not want democracy or a moderate Iraq to succeed.
How do you suppose Saudi Arabia will fare if the Royal family is thrown out and these terrorists and insurgents like you’ve got in Iraq descend on it? Do you think they’ll settle for a peaceful moderate SA?
To say, people should decide SA’s fate and not admit that those people are the same ones who are slaughtering people daily in Iraq is just ignoring the political, religious and cultural history of the entire ME.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Sifu wrote:
I added that it might help if the West didn’t support Musharraf and the Al-Sauds.
You ignored both statements and threw in a strawman.[/quote]
If you would re-read Sifu’s post, you would see that he said we were not supplying arms to Pakistan when the Taliban were in Afghanistan.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Gkhan wrote:
Revise your question and get back to me.[/quote]
You wrote that the dictators have all the weapons in the ME. Question: How did the terrorists get these weapons?
Observation from reading Lixy’s posts:
Pakistan and SA = supplying arms to terrorists?
Iran and Iraq under Saddam = not supplying arms to terrorists?
Is that simple enough?
And do you expect me to believe any of this?