For the most part this is not true. The US is hated in the Middle East largely for specific foreign policies.
[/quote]
Bullshit. We are hated because we are different. They hated us in the 1800’s when the Barbary pirates captured American sailors and held them captive.
They hate each other.
Lawrence of Arabia is the only person to have ever united them. They are tribal by nature. Hatred is in their blood. Like I said in another post, Alexander the Great noted this during his conquest of the Persian Empire. He recognized that although the Persian Army was massive, they were weak because they were not united. Alexander defeated the largest empire in the world with only about 50,000 Greek troops. And it wasn’t even close.
It is hilarious that people think this middle eastern hatred for the west is a recent phenomenon.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I should add that Jamougha’s post reflects the fatal conceit of the Left - they always romanticize who they perceive as “victims”, and then begin to ascribe attitudes, motivations, and values that line up with their romantic vision of the “oppressed”, but are not factually accurate.
The Left wants Islamists to be these noble fighters beating back imperialism in the name of advancing human rights and liberty - the classic Left-wing hero. The Islamists outrightly reject all the values the Left says they hold dear - but the Left ignores all of that and instead inform us all “well, the real reason they fight is…”
Not only is it wrong, but it is also odd - romanticizing the one group of people that stand against everything your movement is supposed to be about.[/quote]
Outstanding. What would your average Taliban member say about homosexuality or even something as basic as women’s rights?
How do we stop breeding terrorist that hate America? I am not asking how do we end terrorism in general but rather how do we keep from giving them reason to hate, in particular, the US.
The following was taken from a post I made in a different thread:
[i]
President Bush is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?” In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about “the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people”.
His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress” [/i]
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
T-Bolt owns this thread.[/quote]
Agreed! Watching T-Bolt destroy Lixy is like watching an old Mike Tyson fight. You know what’s going to happen. Weak jab from Lixy followed by a crushing right uppercut and brutal left to the kidneys from T-Bolt.
Where’s the ref to call this one off, this is too brutal to watch. Lixy, just stay down you fool!
Firstly, I believe you are making the error of lumping all ‘Islamists’ together and assuming they have common motives. There are some who loath the west for the freedoms it grants it’s citizens. They are generally not the ones blowing themselves up.
It’s true that Al Quaida are far from bleeding heart liberals, and I would pretty strenuously oppose the kind of society that they would set up. Still, they are not attacking the US because of western freedoms, nor for any attempts to bring democracy to the middle east (frankly, it would be tough to find any prior to the invasion of Iraq.)
I will quote from a source who, unpleasant as he is, has a good grip on the ideology of AQ; Osama Bin Laden.
“America and its allies are massacring us in Palestine, Chechnya, Kashmir and Iraq. The Muslims have the right to attack America in reprisal… The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government.”
In response to the question ‘Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people?’
“Yes! … We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don’t get security, the Americans, too would not get security. This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live.”
I am not romanticising AQ. They’re a vicious bunch of twisted scum who should be wiped out. They still have an internal rationale that can be comprehended, and it is not about the eradication of our culture. Knowing the truth allows us to fight them better.
Somewhere, lost in between the tinpot Islamofascist regimes and the death-lovers of AQ are the ordinary people of the ME. To a lot of them OBL is a hero, because his rhetoric about the big bad US and it’s interference speaks to their deep dissatisfaction with the state of the ME. Some of them hold extreme views; an awful lot do not. Look at the major liberalizing movement in Iran, for example. In addition to wiping out the terrorists the US needs to win back some degree of trust among those people, to deny AQ it’s massive source of recruits and support.
This would probably have been quite easy after 9/11 - had the US wanted to. Now somehow the Taliban, who most of the ME despised, are celebrated ‘freedom fighters’, about the most nauseating inversion imaginable. British Muslims from well integrated and even secular backgrounds have been willing to blow themselves up for political ends.
This is not because the ordinary Muslems worldwide suddenly decided that they want to live under a brutally repressive regime so much that they’ll die for it. It’s a political problem; it has a political solution. Ignore that and loose.
How do we stop breeding terrorist that hate America? I am not asking how do we end terrorism in general but rather how do we keep from giving them reason to hate, in particular, the US.
The following was taken from a post I made in a different thread:
[i]
President Bush is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?” In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about “the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people”.
His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress” [/i]
Bullshit. We are hated because we are different. They hated us in the 1800’s when the Barbary pirates captured American sailors and held them captive. [/quote]
I don’t know much about Barbary pirates, but I have always thought that that is what pirates do, rob and behead people. Well, they don’t always behead them, it depends on weather and other conditions if they do or not.
How do we stop breeding terrorist that hate America? I am not asking how do we end terrorism in general but rather how do we keep from giving them reason to hate, in particular, the US.
The following was taken from a post I made in a different thread:
[i]
President Bush is not the first to ask: “Why do they hate us?” In a staff discussion 44 years ago, President Eisenhower asked his National Security Council about “the campaign of hatred against us [in the Arab world], not by the governments but by the people”.
His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress” [/i]
There are other factors, but this is the main reason.
Dustin
Because we are forced to deal with their shitty leadership they hate us?
I am so sick of this excuse.
We work with their dictators and we are the bad guys.
We depose their dictators and we are the bad guys.
We cut diplomatic relations with their oppressive regimes and we are still the bad guys.
The problem is obviously on their end, not ours.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with good or bad, it has to do with the human mind. It’s the presence that is seen, nobody cares what you are actually doing, not anymore. When you are always present you are also present when shit happens.
Bullshit. We are hated because we are different. They hated us in the 1800’s when the Barbary pirates captured American sailors and held them captive.
I don’t know much about Barbary pirates, but I have always thought that that is what pirates do, rob and behead people. Well, they don’t always behead them, it depends on weather and other conditions if they do or not.[/quote]
The Barbary pirates were North African muslims who targeted European ships in the name of Allah and riches. Of course, there’s a lot more to it, but that’s it in a nut-shell.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Well, sadly for you, I am not trying to make it fly. I have never asserted Saddam was a radical Islamist and I am not now. You keep inventing strawmen. [/quote]
I beg to differ. Here’s what you wrote:
“The war in Iraq was an extension of the broad war against radical Islam - post-9/11, we took inventory of the world and assessed threat points for terror. One of the big, flashing problems was Saddam’ regime, for all the aforementioned reasons.”
I didn’t make it up. YOU claimed the war on Iraq was “an extension of the broad war against radical Islam - post-9/11”. If the goal was to create a terrorist haven, you succeeded. If it was to fight radical Islam terrorism, well…nobody’s buying that.
That sentence didn’t make sense, but I get the point.
We know for a fact that they harbor Al-Qaeda terrorists, that they own WMDs and that they gave away nuclear expertise to many of your enemies. They are also ruled by a military dictator who makes his opponents disappear. I don’t see why expecting Pakistan to have been WAY above Iraq in the terrorist list is naive.
REAL threats should be tackled before IMAGINARY ones.
It’s also conceivable that it rains frogs tomorrow.
You have KILLED people in Iraq and you dare say stuff like “dominoes” and “conceivable”!
You are desperately trying to rationalize Bush’s decision to wage an unnecessary war. Give it up. You’re demasked.
When I hear attacking Iraq was “an extension of the broad war against radical Islam - post-9/11” knowing that Saddam had NOTHING to do with 9/11 and then (predictably enough) I see that Iraq was transformed into a terrorist haven, it’s my duty to denounce the false pretense under which the war was fought.
No stupid. Your manichaean approach to things is keeping you from seeing the nuances. The message they USE is legitimate. It doesn’t give them the right to kill innocents, but US foreign policy is denounced around the world (and even inside the US) for its double-standards and ruthless interventionism.
Read again. That their grievances are legitimate doesn’t imply they give a damn about fixing them. All they do is wage terror to achieve political power.
You’re acting like you’ve never used a legitimate concern to your own ends. The Green parties around the world fall exactly in the same category. The PETA kooks do the same by exploiting savage treatment of cows in slaughterhouses. Bush and co exploited the REAL threat that is international terrorism to further their PNAC agenda and get a foothold in the M.E.
They are nutball maniacs that exploit the victim status of the Arab world.
That coming from the same country who drove the Soviets into a crazy arms race is ludicrous. You knew their economy couldn’t sustain it but still went on with it. The US spent less 5% on weapons while the USSR spent as much as 60%.
Did I also mention that the US has recently broken an important international treaty on missiles?
Did you notice how North Korea accelerated their nukes program after you invaded Iraq? Did you notice how every country in the M.E. and Africa has officially expressed their wish to pursue a “civil” nuclear program?
What you’re saying is that the actions of the world’s sole superpower and the actions of its omnipotent military around the world has no consequences whatsoever on the behavior of other countries. Ask any schoolkid and they will definitely laugh at your face.
When you said “mighty show of force”, I expected something even more murderous than Iraq. That is, even more innocents dying. Given your recent history, the image of a mushroom cloud came to my mind but I might have misinterpreted what “mighty show of force” means to you. Please, explain what you had in mind.
Again, you may wanna deal with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia NOT Iraq.
???
Protein is needed when you make the case a muscle needs to be built.
I asked you how you were gonna get it. Given the overwhelming opposition Bush is facing for waging a “PC” (from your perspective) war, how can you possibly expect a “tougher stance” would have public support.
Let’s see, the war in Iraq involved flying around the world and starting wars, but you deemed it PC despite the extensively large death toll.
So, how exactly are you envisioning a “mighty show of force” without killing at least as many people as the “PC” war? I’m sure if you ask Iraqis about post-war Iraq, he will describe it as “hell on earth”. How can you possibly make it worse?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Because we are forced to deal with their shitty leadership they hate us?
I am so sick of this excuse.
[/quote]
Read closer Zap:
His National Security Council outlined the basic reasons: the US supports corrupt and oppressive governments and is “opposing political or economic progress”
They didn’t say “dealing” with them. It’s about supporting them.
The exact same applies for the brutal regimes you helped install in Latin America.
Bullshit. We are hated because we are different. They hated us in the 1800’s when the Barbary pirates captured American sailors and held them captive.
I don’t know much about Barbary pirates, but I have always thought that that is what pirates do, rob and behead people. Well, they don’t always behead them, it depends on weather and other conditions if they do or not.[/quote]
Forget it. PGJ is convinced that Muslims are barbarians. From his answer to your post, it should be clear to any reader that he has a bigoted mind.
Ironically, he threatened me physically in another thread. You know who comes out as barbarian in that case…
“The war in Iraq was an extension of the broad war against radical Islam - post-9/11, we took inventory of the world and assessed threat points for terror. One of the big, flashing problems was Saddam’ regime, for all the aforementioned reasons.”
I didn’t make it up. YOU claimed the war on Iraq was “an extension of the broad war against radical Islam - post-9/11”. If the goal was to create a terrorist haven, you succeeded. If it was to fight radical Islam terrorism, well…nobody’s buying that.[/quote]
Sometimes I wonder why I bother with you. Radical Islam seeks weaponry - they are not a state army, so they must get their wares from the black market. Iraq represented such a potential black market.
Nowhere did I say Saddam was a radical Islamist, but he certainly had every reason to get his nasty weapons into the hands of those that would hurt his enemies.
I grow more unimpressed with you with each post. This is basic stuff - you just want to disagree for the sake of it.
Good, then run for President and make a different decision. You are whining at the choice - but now you are changing your tune again: you are saying Pakistan was worse than Iraq, not that Iraq was not a threat. Fine. A fair and debatable point - but it contradicts the argument you were making earlier.
There are other reasons, of course, not to flatten Pakistan - Pakistan borders Afghanistan. We needed to lean on Pakistan to cooperate in the war in Afghanistan, but not attack them.
Things get complicated outside of your left-wing whine session at the local coffee house, Lixy. You haven’t shown the depth to handle it, so there is little reason to go further.
Iraq wasn’t an imaginary threat - but no amount of factual evidence will convince you otherwise, because you aren’t interested in the conclusions that facts dictate: your mind made up, you cling to ideology instead of reason.
[quote]It’s also conceivable that it rains frogs tomorrow.
You have KILLED people in Iraq and you dare say stuff like “dominoes” and “conceivable”![/quote]
In war, people get killed. I beg you - stop the naive pacifist routine.
You sound like a college-age imbecile angry at “the Man” reading “radical” books to assuage those bitter if juvenile feelings - oh wait - I think I may have just figured out the problem…
Hilarious - you try such strong language in hopes that is masquerades your failings, the failings that have been laid bare in front of every reader here.
The case against Saddam was rational, although people are welcome to disagree as a threshold matter where the war was a good idea or not.
But the facts point to a conclusion - you just refuse to consider them because - crime of crimes! - it will dictate a conclusion outside of your brainless, unquestioning ideology.
Hehehe - you keep “denouncing” and nothing happens. You keep returning to an idea that no one has made the rational case to topple Saddam, when people have. Stop pretending.
This doesn’t explain your painfully obvious self-contradiction.
This makes no sense - they have grievances, but when they act out against the people who are “causing” the grievances, they aren’t acting out against the people who are “causing” the grievances?
You have derailed.
If disgruntled Muslims become terrorists, it is because - in your view - that they are motivated to strike back at their oppressor. But as soon as they strap on the bomb, all their motivation is gone, and the don’t care about the plight of their oppressed brethren?
I know the answer - you have no idea what you are talking about. You have been cornered, and you are trying to explain away an answer to save yourself from having to say “dang, I made no sense”. Such pride!
Yes, and again you show your limits. First, the USSR was going to arm itself to the teeth anyway - totalitarian regimes don’t achieve global dominance through ideas alone, you know (your left-wing manuals probably have a chapter on this). Second, of course the USSR couldn’t keep pace - that was the whole point of the Cold War. Turn it into a contest of attrition, exhaust the enemy, and they fold.
You know, at this point - I don’t even think you are qualified to play a game of RISK.
Broken? Or withdrew?
Please - stop the victimization routine. NK was trying to arm itself with nukes back in the 1990s - why must you always resort to that ridiculous “victim” theory for every monster in the world?
No one takes you seriously anymore, Lixy. No one.
I never said US actions don’t create some consequences - but not every action is the result of something the US does: especially when it comes to totalitarian regimes whose agenda is transparent. They do what they want, no matter how much cover you try and provide for them.
I don’t think nukes are a good idea.
What makes you think we aren’t dealing with them?
You need to be a realist. And get educated.
[quote]Protein is needed when you make the case a muscle needs to be built.
I asked you how you were gonna get it. Given the overwhelming opposition Bush is facing for waging a “PC” (from your perspective) war, how can you possibly expect a “tougher stance” would have public support.[/quote]
The public isn’t angry at Bush for a “tough” war - that are angry at an inefficient, wasteful, lengthy war that has been mismanaged. A “tougher” stance - especially years ago - would lead to a quicker conclusion and would have sent a stronger message to those opposed to the Iraqi democracy.
Well, if you want to bomb Iraq, you do have to go there.
Well, you have it exactly backwards - a “PC” war involves ever more and more casualties, because out of fear of using force, battles continue to wage here and there, at the margin, with no conclusion, on and on.
That is where the casualties add up -over time. No one is ever truly defeated. The harsher the war is, the sooner it is over, and that means fewer casualties. A “PC” war drags on out of indecision and fear of hurting people’s feelings, and as it drags, more and more people die.
Lixy, do yourself a favor and try something other than the predictable radical Left line. I once sympathized with your ignorance, but now I realize it is a willful ignorance. And that is tragic.
And it also leads to a dull debate - there is no sport in it anymore.
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
"I pretty sure most Muslims have no idea what forgiveness means. Kindness and good will towards fellow men, that are not muslims is not taught in Islam. Hate, vengeance, murder, suicide, venom, torture and vindication are.
Pat, I get really concerned when I read such things. I feel the point-of-no-return has been crossed for you. You are no better than the indocrinated Islamis.
Sad that an apparently intelligent person would say such things. Sad that many more might share the same sentiment regarding Muslims.
[/quote]
Prove me wrong…Show me examples of Muslim good will to others, because in my world view, there is a distinct lack of it. Yes, they’ll do good to each other, but a non-muslim? I am pretty sure y’all wouldn’t piss on a Jew if he were on fire.
This doesn’t mean I think all muslims are bad. It doesn’t even mean I think most muslims are bad I am sure most aren’t BUT there is a pervasive radical element eating away at the core of your religion destroying it like a cancer in the body.
The greater Muslim community embraces the cancer and at very best stops at mere weak words. Like taking an asprin to fight the cancer. Islam needs chemotherapy and you have to extricate the evil with in your religion. Otherwise, it will die. That is a certainty if things don’t change.
As long as evil men do harm in the name of Islam, and people like yourself justify an condone such actions then all things Islamic will continue to be viewed in a negative light by the rest of the 4.8 billion people in the world.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Since they started attacking us for no reason or made up reasons how in the flying fuck do you expect US to control whether or not more are made. Perhaps the Jedi mind trick. I’d piss on a spark plug if I thought it would help.
Do you believe part of the answer to the “war on terror” lies in our PR with the region we are trying to control? If the answer is a definite, “no, absolutely not,” then do you think it is possible to win a “war on terror” with force?[/quote]
PR? We have no credibility with them and never did. No, I don’t think force is going to change their feeling for us and quite frankly, don give a fuck if they like us. I just don’t want them to bomb us. Force is part of that, because it’s easily understood.
Ultimately, I think being self sufficient and pulling ALL of our people and cash out of the middle east would fuck them up far worse than our bombs and that’s what I want to happen. Definitely we need to do better on the propaganda front.
The terrorists are killing us (no pun intended) on that front. As far as hearts and minds, forget it…and that’s where Bush fucked up the most. HGe thought he could turn them and he was WRONG.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Radical Islam seeks weaponry - they are not a state army, so they must get their wares from the black market. Iraq represented such a potential black market. [/quote]
First of all, why would Saddam sell weapons to his sworn enemies? Secondly, I can remember that right after the invasion, Iraqi weapons poured into the black market
But you were probably too busy cheering Bush to actually follow the developments.
Nonsense. Islamists are as much his enemies as they are yours.
I wasn’t born in the US and don’t say things like “nucular”. I doubt that is achievable.
No. I’m saying one is a REAL threat, while the other was made up.
I’m gonna stick with Pakistan not being a strategic location and not having any oil, thank you very much.
Factual my ass! All you had were suppositions and yet you went ahead and slaughtered thousands based on nothing more than a matrix of lies.
I’ll stop if you can prove to me that the war was INEVITABLE. Evidently, all it’s done, is make the region and the world much less safe.
You can’t talk about thresholds. It was either going the civilized way or wage war. You chose the latter.
I don’t buy your “case” against Saddam because one can easily make a much stronger case against other countries.
If your case was “rational”, why then would you have UN officials harshly condemning military actions, millions protesting in the streets around the world (including the US), and hundreds of articles and books debunking it?
Virtually nobody outside of the US and UK ever bought that crap.
[quote]This makes no sense - they have grievances, but when they act out against the people who are “causing” the grievances, they aren’t acting out against the people who are “causing” the grievances?
You have derailed. [/quote]
You’re not even trying.
That Al-Qaeda’s message has a legitimate part - acknowledge by people inside Washington - doesn’t necessarily make them rational. Do you know any rational person who flies commercial jetplanes into buildings?
Ridiculous! Why would the USSR acquire thousands of nuclear heads or long-range missiles if it wasn’t for your arms race? Yes, they needed a strong army to impose order in their country, but saying they were gonna arm themselves to the teeth anyway is disingenuous.
But I’m glad that you admitted the point of the cold war was to bring them to their knees by forcing them into an arms race they can’t sustain. Surely, you can’t pretend that such strategy is making the world any safer.
Withdrew? Or broken? Bottomline, is the US unilaterally broke a deal that was central to peace in the world. You can’t expect others to watch quietly. They will arm themselves as well.
I’m not saying N.Korean leaders are victims. I’m saying that the “axis of evil” speech and the war in Iraq have definitely had a strong impact on their nuclear weapons program.
If you hear someone name you and your colleagues “axis of evil”, then you see that person violently agressing one your colleagues, wouldn’t you do whatever’s in your power to deter a potential attack? I know I would.
I like the way you sneaked a some in your statement. Anyway, if you can’t see that the Iraq war has fueled terrorism in the region and that other countries are seeking to build nuclear weapons partly because of your brutal interventionism, then I can’t do much to convince you otherwise. It’s merely common sense.
The fact that you are digging a deeper hole in Iraq.
You’re shamelessly projecting your opinions and saying it’s what the public is angry at.
[quote]Well, you have it exactly backwards - a “PC” war involves ever more and more casualties, because out of fear of using force, battles continue to wage here and there, at the margin, with no conclusion, on and on.
That is where the casualties add up -over time. No one is ever truly defeated. The harsher the war is, the sooner it is over, and that means fewer casualties. A “PC” war drags on out of indecision and fear of hurting people’s feelings, and as it drags, more and more people die.[/quote]
A few posts ago, you said that you wanted to educate people that messing with the US is a bad mistake (like anybody doesn’t that already!). By any interpretation, it means killing A LOT of people. Whether it’s in a few days or a few years doesn’t really matter for the victims.
The International Court of Justice is considering trying Bush and Blair for war-crimes even with your so-called PC war. Iraqis are prosecuting them in Belgium under similar charges. Within the US, many lawyers are trying to do the same. What makes you think you could get away with a tougher war given that the edulcorated (from your perspective) version is coming under such heavy fire?
You don’t have a clue about terrorism if you think you can end it by a “mighty show of force”. That oughta render things even worse. But then again, it’s pretty bad already, so…