[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
We were attacked Lixy, not once but many times and we turned the other cheek many times. Do you really think we should take it? We should reach out to those who want to kill us for no good reason.
They’re trying to kill me too. Not once, but many times they attacked my country. But you don’t see us going around invading other countries just to feel better about ourselves.[/quote]
Maybe because your country couldn’t fight those other country’s? Think of it this way if you get punched in the face do you just stand there or do you hit back, your country just sits there and gets hit while America knocks them the fuck out.
[quote]You and your fellow muslims are doing nothing to stop it.
What do you want me to do? The police I pay for with my tax money is doing an excellent job at taking them down, but they’re too numerous and their ranks are growing by the day as long as the M.E. is the way it is.
You can’t make terrorism disappear overnight and you can’t fight it using an army. This much should be clear.
You do not condemn, but you condone, defend, and justify those who do harm in the name of islam.
It’s unfair of you to say that. I just provide context. [/quote]
No Lixy, you justify your brothers blowing there ass up. And yes terrorism can be fought by military needs.
[quote]You do it by saying “Yes, what the terrorists were wrong, BUT if the USA…( fill in the blank)” It is your job to make sure the practitioners of your religion are peaceful. It is our job to defend ourselves.
You do realize I was meters away from a terrorist attack that left a pile of bodies in Casablanca? It’s my job to defend myself as well, and so I point out what I see as fueling terror. The unlawful invasion of Iraq was clearly one of them.[/quote]
Unlawful invasion? please explain. And you saying its bad does not make it unlawful. You point out your hatred for America and see the terrorist as friends everyone else here sees it don’t give me that bullshit.
Because we are forced to deal with their shitty leadership they hate us?
How are forced to deal with their leadership? This was a quote from 1958. We were dealing with them because we want (need) their natural resources…[/quote]
You just answered your own question. We need access to oil. That is why we are forced to deal with them.
While I realize the source for this will be attacked, it does cite what survey/polls it relies on for it’s numbers. If there is doubt concerning these polls and responses, feel free to look up the polls.
"It’s time we open our eyes and confront reality. Ever since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the media has sought to reassure us that only a tiny minority of Muslims actually support the use of violence against Israel and the West.
It’s just a small fringe, a marginal few at best, they tell us, so don’t worry about it all too much. One percent or three percent - who cares? Just sit back, enjoy your morning eggs and coffee and have a nice day.
But a look at the numbers tells a very different story. The extent of support for global jihad is frightening in its proportions, and the numbers are anything but insignificant.
Consider, for example, the following statistics regarding support for suicide bombings and other types of terror attacks.
In a poll conducted five months ago, and broadcast on Britain’s Channel 4 TV, nearly 25% of British Muslims said the July 7, 2005, terror bombings in London, which killed 52 innocent commuters, were justified. Another 30% said they would prefer to live under strict Islamic Sharia law rather than England’s democratic system.
Now, one in four justifying terror may not be a majority, but it certainly isn’t a “small fringe” either.
In other countries, the figures are no less unsettling. A survey published in December found that 44% of Nigerian Muslims believe suicide bombing attacks are “often” or “sometimes” acceptable. Only 28% said they were never justified.
According to the annual Pew Global Attitudes Survey, released in July 2006, “roughly one-in-seven Muslims in France, Spain and Great Britain feel that suicide bombings against civilian targets can at least sometimes be justified to defend Islam.” The report also found that less than half of Jordan’s Muslims believe terror attacks are never justified. In Egypt, only 45% of Muslims say terror is never justified.
STILL THINK only a “tiny minority” are in favor of violence? In Israel, the percentages are even more alarming. After Cpl. Gilad Shalit was abducted by Hamas terrorists last summer, a poll conducted by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Center revealed that 77.2% of Palestinians supported the kidnapping, while 66.8% said they would back additional such attacks.
More than six out of 10 Palestinians also said they were in favor of firing Kassam rockets at Israeli towns and cities.
And lest you think that war fever lay behind the results, consider this: four additional polls published in September, nearly a month after the Lebanese conflict had ended, all found large majorities of Palestinians backing terror attacks against the Jewish state.
Indeed, in various countries around the world, support for Muslim fundamentalist terror groups appears to be widespread.
On the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks, a survey conducted by Al-Jazeera asked respondents, “Do you support Osama Bin-Laden?” A whopping 49.9% answered: yes.
And the July 2006 global Pew survey found that among Muslims, a quarter of Jordanians, a third of Indonesians, 38% of Pakistanis and 61% of Nigerians all expressed confidence in the mass murderer who founded al-Qaida.
In Lebanon six months ago, the Beirut Center for Research and Information found that over 80% of the Lebanese population said they supported Hizbullah.
And do I need also to mention that a majority of Palestinians backed Hamas in parliamentary elections last year? Sure, there are also places where support for violent jihad is not as high. As Reuters reported on October 15, just 10 percent of Indonesian Muslims said they backed jihad and supported bomb attacks on the island of Bali aimed at foreign tourists.
But Indonesia is home to more than 200 million Muslims, so while 10 percent may sound like a small number percentage-wise, it is actually quite large in absolute terms. It means there are some 20 million Muslims in Indonesia alone who are willing to say out loud that they support the use of violence and terror against innocent human beings.
Since when is that a “marginal few”? The question of whether a “tiny” or “sizable” minority backs the global jihad is far more than just one of semantics. It goes to the very nature of the struggle that Israel and the West now find ourselves in.
The figures above, taken from a variety of nations, continents and contexts, all point in one very ominous direction. They demonstrate beyond a shadow of a doubt that the global jihadist movement enjoys a wide and broad base of support that extends far beyond just a minuscule number of supporters.
POLITICIANS and journalists might wish to believe, as we all do, that the backers of violent jihad are few and far between, and that they do not represent large numbers of people with like-minded extremist views. But that is simply not the case.
The arithmetic of jihad is quite straight-forward, and it is time we stopped looking the other way and pretending otherwise.
The threat posed by Islamic fundamentalism to Israel and the West can, and must, be met. With determination and a sense of purpose, victory is not out of reach.
But the longer we continue to underestimate the extent of the problem, the more difficult it will be to defeat it.
So let’s put aside all that wishful thinking, and roll up our collective sleeves and get to work. Like it or not, the war on terror still faces a long road ahead."
[quote]lixy wrote:
pat36 wrote:
We were attacked Lixy, not once but many times and we turned the other cheek many times. Do you really think we should take it? We should reach out to those who want to kill us for no good reason.
They’re trying to kill me too. Not once, but many times they attacked my country. But you don’t see us going around invading other countries just to feel better about ourselves.
You and your fellow muslims are doing nothing to stop it.
What do you want me to do? The police I pay for with my tax money is doing an excellent job at taking them down, but they’re too numerous and their ranks are growing by the day as long as the M.E. is the way it is.
You can’t make terrorism disappear overnight and you can’t fight it using an army. This much should be clear.
You do not condemn, but you condone, defend, and justify those who do harm in the name of islam.
It’s unfair of you to say that. I just provide context.
You do it by saying “Yes, what the terrorists were wrong, BUT if the USA…( fill in the blank)” It is your job to make sure the practitioners of your religion are peaceful. It is our job to defend ourselves.
You do realize I was meters away from a terrorist attack that left a pile of bodies in Casablanca? It’s my job to defend myself as well, and so I point out what I see as fueling terror. The unlawful invasion of Iraq was clearly one of them.
Arab nationalism is dead because it aligned itself with the wrong side during the cold war. The Islamists were the only alternative left to challenge the dictators in place throughout the Arab world. I believe the answer lies in reviving the movement.
However, you guys are still opposing it because of economical reasons. Such movement will nationalize everything the way Chavez did in Venezuela. So, it’s a double-edged sword and at the end of the day, it’s all about money and power.
While I think Iraq was a travesty and one of the biggest mistakes ever made by the leadership in our country; I am by in large for rooting out the terrorists with force. Starting with AL Kade Duh and moving on down the line. If anything in America we are to tolerant and forgiving to our detriment. Had we done something in '93 with the first WTC bombing or maybe with string of hi-jackings in the mid- eighties, things wouldn’t have gotten this bad.
Couldn’t agree more.[/quote]
What do I want you guys(the Muslim community in general) to do? Rise up a take a stand against the terrorist elements in your house. Open dialog with fellow Muslims and unite against terror and call out their blasphemy against God when they use his name to harm, mame or kill. Condemn their actions as unIslamic and an offense to God and the people of Islam, publicly and privately.
Call them out and let them know that they are not welcome. Cast the radical elements out of the mosques and on the the streets. Unite against the terror, cleanse the body of your church of this disease, and seek reconciliation and unity amongst yourselves and then reach out to others as well. That’s what I want y’all all to do. No outsider can do that, only Muslims can fix what’s inside. We can only keep terrorists at bay with weapons and force.
Sure, the situation in Iraq has helped to fuel animosity, sure. That’s just symptom of the greater problem at large, though.
P.S. I am glad your were not harmed in that terrorist attack in Casablanca.
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[/quote]
France and Russia were no friends of Saddam - and yet that had contracts with him. If it served Saddam’s agenda, anyone was an ally.
And how naive do you have to be to think that Saddam wouldn’t cooperate with Islamists to harm his enemies?
Oh, you have to be naive as Lixy - that’s how naive.
Hmm - well, let’s see: France had the second largest European contingent in the first Gulf War (that makes them a definitional enemy) and Saddam had contracts with France.
Plus, terrorists were given sanctuary in Baghdad.
You believe exactly as you want - Saddam was a mayhem artist, and he would deal with anyone who could get him what he wanted. “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” - no way we were going to risk that in light of what we knew about Saddam.
Your theories - weirdly - defy common sense. Well, maybe that isn’t so weird.
Wait - are you trying to make a joke at evil genius Bush again, or idiot Bush? It’s getting hard to track all your conflicting statements.
Which again has been debunked - but you insist it hasn’t. Not my problem to fix.
Thanks for again making my point. You start with a conclusion - “mean old Bush went for the oil!!” - and you hunker down, ignoring all the facts to the contrary, because your ideology doesn’t permit you to deviate from its dogma.
You have made up your mind before you hear any evidence - because you are comprehensively irrational. This question has been dealt over and over. Shame.
Yawn. This gets tiresome. Remember I said there was no sport in it anymore?
Recall all the information provided for you - the NIE, the UN Resolution, statements made by governments, a bipartisan Congressional resolution, etc. - but like a child, you cover your ears, close your eyes, and scream “matrix of lies!!!”, as if somehow you bleating it makes it true.
This has become the sad fact of the Left - instead of arguing intelligently, they merely shout their slogans repeatedly. It’s no wonder no one takes you seriously.
You don’t think any war is inevitable -so what is the use in presenting evidence to suggest it was?
Your mind is made up. Why bother then?
Erm, “thresholds” mean at what point do you opt for war. You really suck at this.
Not really, or I should say, you haven’t made it. Which of the other countries had breached an international ceasefire? Which of the other countries had been operating on the black market via Oil-for-Food?
Sure there are other countries that are bad - but as I said earlier, the choices are complex, and you have shown no ability to understand that.
Well, the UN is easy - they are bureaucratic pacifists afraid to do the right thing. Always have been.
As for millions in the street, ask yourself where they are - and then ask yourself in we live in a global democracy where they get to vote on how to handle US national security.
And finally, how about all the books and articles in support of it? You make no subsantive claim at all - I can say the same.
No one outside the US gets to vote on how we should handle our national security either, so who cares?
I don’t have to - you have already tied yourself in a knot.
What does this have to do with your point?
And if they are as irrational as you claim, there is no rational policy to get them to quit terror. How are you going to convince them? If you blame American foreign policy for their actions, and America stops its foreign policy, why would you think they would stop - after all, they are irrational! They won’t recognize cause and effect and appreciate the “cause” is gone. It wouldn’t make a difference - they aren’t rational?
If they are as irrational as you claim, all your cause-and-effect material is out the window.
So keep switching - you look like a moron.
Uh, to conquer the known world?
That was an easy one.
And you are pathetically transparent - acting like the USSR would not have armed itself of its own accord. But then again, Lixy is immune to reason!
The USSR knew the world would not go down without a fight - so they decided to arm and fast. This is common sense - but then, you are immune to that as well.
Was it a secret?
Notice how you slither out of that one - whether it was broken or lawfully withdrawn makes a huge difference. You didn’t know, so you made it up - and got caught again.
And the move was transparent - and no one is expecting anyone to “watch quietly”.
How can I be sneaking it in when it is written right on the page?
I beg you - don’t invoke “common sense”. You have none and probably never will at this rate.
But these “other countries” wanted nukes long before the US did anything in Iraq. To blame the US is just dishonest.
Well then, Lixy - you seem to know the answer: do tell. What are the Americans mad at, if not my suggestion?
You don’t live here, your education is severely limited, and you have proven over and over your blinkered ideology doesn’t allow you to view the world as it really is…
…so what do you know that I don’t?
Nope - and it’s not just killing people. It is attacking their ability to wage war.
As for the point about preventing deaths in the long run, your thesis is plain wrong: if your show of force breaks the spirit to fight, then there will be fewer fights in the future. Leave a crack for them to think they can win, and they will keep at it - and an ever escalating body count.
Yawn.
And this means what? Some small, political court in Belgium making political statements via its “judgments” means what to the rest of us?
What? Heavy fire? Bwahahahahaha - that is funniest thing I have seen you write.
A small gaggle of radicals are trying to “sue” the government officials, headed nowhere in a lawsuit, and you call it “heavy fire”?
I laughed till it hurt. And then some more.
Well, the game is up, I think we all see what you are about, so let’s bring it out on the open.
Your goal is to be an ankle-biter to Americans around these forums. You are not interested in true debate - which is actually a blessing, since you don’t seem very good at it. But as is, you want to irritate, aggravate, and try and “rub our noses” in something that makes you cry at night.
If an American gets mad at you, then you think you have done something worthwhile. You want to be an irritant.
The problem is - we don’t take it seriously. You are transparent. Your arguments are unoriginal - you merely parrot the radical left-wing dogma. You’ve made yourself uninteresting.
And you aren’t irritating anyone, largely because you simply don’t challenge anyone. You don’t ask tough questions or present challenging arguments. Someone provides facts that are inconvenient to you, and your response is “lies! It’s all doctored!” You repeat propaganda you read from somewhere else.
So, I think we’re probably done, out of sheer boredom.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Support of terrorism and extremism is rather widespread throughout the Islamic world. I’ll provide this article. One might not like the source, fine. I don’t present it as unbiased. However, it DOES site the polls and surveys it uses to make it’s argument. [/quote]
Let me first start by a quick allusion to Mr. Michael Freund and his position of Deputy Director of Communications & Policy Planning in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office under Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu being the same guy who attended and praised a ceremony to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the king David’s hotel bombing.
More importantly, I vainly tried to locate the first too polls and would love some help. The Channel 4 with 25% is nowhere to be found. I am seriously concerned here because that figure seems a tad overblown. But by all means, feel free to prove me wrong.
Adding insult ot injury, the original Al-Jazeera poll quoting 49.9% supporting Ben-Laden was also impossible to locate. Can you please find me the original source? I found a lot of discussion about it on the “usual suspect” sites (Lil’ green football, Jihad watch and other crap), and it seems it was an internet poll to start with.
Don’t know how much credit you guys give to an unverifiable internet poll, but that was when the article turned into a trying-too-hard diatribe.
I am perfectly open to continue the discussion about it, but until I can verify the first two counter intuitive polls, I am obligated to question the validity of those figures. Understand that it has nothing to do with not dealing with reality, but a LOT of propaganda is circulating on both sides, and it’s our duty to expose lies when you see them.
I don’t know how you think the article is related to the thread but thanks for posting it anyway.
Lawrence of Arabia is the only person to have ever united them. [/quote]
It’s Lawrence’s fault we’re in this mess.
Alexander’s army defeated the Persians because his phalanx was better armored, better armed, and better drilled than Darius’ army. The Persians could have been the most unified, most homogenous, most striving-for-a-common-cause bunch in the world, and the result would have been the same. With those wicker shields and short spears, there was literally nothing they could do but be butchered.
Technology, not ideology, wins battles. Unfortunately, some nations assume that because their technology is superior, then their ideology must be as well.
[quote]It is hilarious that people think this middle eastern hatred for the west is a recent phenomenon.
[/quote]
Even more hilarious is that some people think this Middle Eastern hatred of the West can be defeated militarily.
[quote]PGJ wrote:
For once, I think you have made some good arguments. However, the perception is just as I have explained. My recommendation is for the truly peaceful, remorseful Muslims out there (and I know there are many) to be more active in denouncing terrorism in the name of their religion. [/quote]
I totally concur.
Sadly, it’s true. I watch US newscasts, read US papers, and I can’t blame you for getting the that impression.
Of course they are. But they can’t do it overnight, and most certainly the influx of terrorists isn’t going to stop while US troops are occupying Iraq. Kids with no life and no perspectives have been flowing into Iraq like crazy ever since 2003 from all over the Islamic world.
There is indeed absolutely no excuse for such barbarious behavior. It was quite predictable though.
I am sure I saw Catholics lash out Protestants a few years back in Ireland. I also saw Christians attack a Synagogue in the US around 2006.
That being said. I agree with your point that such clashes are much less common in the Western world.
So, Saddam’s regime had nothing to do with Al Qaeda affiliate Abu Sayyaf (Philippines)? And he didn’t pay the families of suicide (Martyrdom) bombers support money?
[quote]lixy wrote:
Netanyahu being the same guy who attended and praised a ceremony to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the king David’s hotel bombing. [/quote]
You wouldn’t expect a former Israeli prime minister to condemn an act of terrorism that was planned and executed by another former Israeli prime minister, now would you?
[quote]PGJ wrote:
I think we have a difference in opinion of the purpose of American forces in Iraq. [/quote]
While I do not question the purpose of the soldier in Iraq, I find Washington’s shaky line very dubious.
C’mon! Even US official documents refer to it as “occupation”.
No, you couldn’t have. Times have changed. It’s not the 19th century anymore. The American public would have never allowed such thing. The international community would have fiercely resisted that. So, instead what you did is get juicy contracts for US oil companies and built bases around Iraq to establish your authority. You might not see it that way, but the great majority of analysits do.
That’s where I’ll have to disagree with you. I’m sure you’re fueled with nothing but good faith and the will to make things better in Iraq, but there is no way in hell you can convince anyone that the political leadership of a country would put so much at risk for nothing more than the welfare of the Iraqis.
Absolutely. But you cannot deny that there is a legitimate secular resistance and when you say that you killed insurgents, there is no way to know if it was the brainwashed whackos or the nationalist heroes you put to rest.
Hmmm…difficult to buy that argument. The international community warned about that, the CIA warned about that, every serious political analyst warned about that. Bush chose to put his fingers in his ears.
It’s that simple.
[quote]I ask you, what is it going to take for the Islamic world to understand that America is not a conquerer. We are there to try to make it a better place. Who doesn’t like freedom? Freedom did not exist under Baathist rule.
If we leave now, no doubt some form of totalitarian Baathist or Taliban or Al Quaeda element will be in charge. Is that what Muslims want for Iraq? [/quote]
Fact of the matter is, you’re doomed if you do and you’re doomed if you don’t. But since you invaded for shady reasons, I think withdrawing is the best thing you can do to help Iraqis shape up and deal with the extremists. At least, you won’t be pouring blood and money into the sand. Of course, as soon as you’re gone, the support base of Al-Qaeda and other groups will be cut because their main rallying cause will cease to exist.
I’m not sure what you meant by that. Are you suggesting Muslims somehow voluntarily choose fascism over freedom?
[quote]pat36 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Don’t deflect the question with propaganda. The question was about incensing terrorism not what heros are in the US military. I believe there is already a thread for that.
btw, that MSgt that drowned was in the same unit I once served in at Cherry Point MCAS.
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.
They had no reason to hate us in the first place. But they started killing us first remember? (Talking about terrorists, not Iraq)
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.
[/quote]
Have you ever considered using your brain. That might help.
And let’s call pissing on a spark plug plan b, ok?
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.
Truthfully, I don’t think we have much control over it, largely because I reject the sloppy “cause and effect” that is typically offered up to show what the root is.
…
[/quote]
I agree. “cause and effect”, Darwinism, same difference.
When you know you’re right, you’re right. And that’s it.
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.
Truthfully, I don’t think we have much control over it, largely because I reject the sloppy “cause and effect” that is typically offered up to show what the root is.
But I think it is a two-step process:
Educate any would be terrorist - i.e., any observer in the Islamic world capable of “hating” America - that war and violence against the West is the gravest mistake he will ever make. Teach them first that regardless of their opinion of America, the West, etc., that war is not a romantic choice in a romantic cause - teach them that it leads to hell and misery for himself and everyone important to him.[/quote]
I must be dreaming. Or perhaps I’ve died and gone to heaven. What if you just KNOW that you will be greated a liberator and that people will shower you with flowers? What if you went out to overthrow a brutal tyrant? What if you precious leader told you that the attackee was an imminent threat to your own safety? Surely war would be ok then, wouldn’t it? Woudln’t it?
[quote]2. Then after convincing them of that, they must turn inward and solve the issue. We can help to some degree - deal with them as fairly as possible in the international realm - but this is largely a self-inflicted malady that must be solved internally.
Whatever self-cure is possible in the future, nothing will happen on this front until they know that striking out is a mistake. Otherwise, the catalyst remains dormant - as long as they think they can place their responsibility on the rest of world by creating scapegoats and attacking them, they will never have that “internal conversation”.
[/quote]
I’m still dreaming. Or still dead and in heaven. I never thought you had it in you. When will this “internal conversation” take place, and can we help you with it? Do you need a loud speaker perhaps?
“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%.”
How exactly is that last part our fault? Is this a bad thing? The Soviets did what they did because they wanted to. In your view everything the US ever did, does or will do is evil. Read up on history before you condemn US policies against the Communists and read up on how many people the Commies killed, how many were killed by the weapons they produced which permeated the world before you go and call us the bad guys.
It’s no use arguing with you, you’re brainwashed by the Red propaganda used by the KGB to turn the third world against the US.
“Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. “In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?” But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. “This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.”
There was also a bit about WMDs that was not particularly fascinating. I mean, of course. the guy lied. That’s what dictators do. It confirms what I’ve been yelling for years.
“Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. “In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?” But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. “This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.”
There was also a bit about WMDs that was not particularly fascinating. I mean, of course. the guy lied. That’s what dictators do.
So, we should believe the first part as truth, and the second is a lie? What if he was lying all along?
The question is what’s the sin of the slaughtered Iraqi kids to deserve such fate?
Ask that to the victims of 9-11, the Cole, Khobar Towers, the Marine barracks in Lebanon, ect.
The unlawful invasion of Iraq was clearly one of them.
What you are saying is if the US didn’t invade Iraq, there would be no terrorists. That terrorism would have just stopped? They have been growing for years and years and would keep growing with or without the invasion of Iraq.
Arab nationalism is dead because it aligned itself with the wrong side during the cold war. The Islamists were the only alternative left to challenge the dictators in place throughout the Arab world. I believe the answer lies in reviving the movement.
Reviving Arab nationalism? What and support evil dictators? What good would that do, you already claim this is one of the problems fueling the Islamic extremism that is spreading. Now you think it would stop it? I am confused about your logic here.
“Terrorism is coming. I told the Americans a long time before Aug. 2 and told the British as well … that in the future there will be terrorism with weapons of mass destruction.” Saddam goes on to say such attacks would be difficult to stop. “In the future, what would prevent a booby-trapped car causing a nuclear explosion in Washington or a germ or a chemical one?” But he adds that Iraq would never do such a thing. “This is coming, this story is coming but not from Iraq.”
There was also a bit about WMDs that was not particularly fascinating. I mean, of course. the guy lied. That’s what dictators do. The question is what’s the sin of the slaughtered Iraqi kids to deserve such fate?
P.S. lixy, be careful impugning the source. As you know, abc is consistently hostile to all things Republican.
In foreign affairs, the only difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the former implement the policies quietly while the latter do it in the broad daylight and even brag about it.[/quote]