Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- From: Bruce Morgen <editor@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 00:34:22 -0500
flipper <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 21 May 2007 19:57:56 -0500, Bruce Morgen <editor@xxxxxxxx>
wrote:
flipper <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 19 May 2007 16:46:24 -0500, Bruce Morgen <editor@xxxxxxxx>Wahabbist (and undoubtedly other
wrote:
flipper <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:21:25 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampscience@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"flipper" <flipper@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:17kn43libevs3me76koot4cdqc8upllpgq@xxxxxxxxxx
On Wed, 16 May 2007 14:57:48 -0500, "Elvis Kabong"
<ampscience@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[snip to get to 2 points to re-address]
In fact, you clueless idiots keep claiming the U.S. 'helped' Saddam so
how the bloody hell could his wars be the result of the U.S. 'fucking'
with him? Your own B.S. contradicts your own B.S..
For your information, Mr.Mentally Preverted Genius, you are still operating
under the false premise that Saddam caused 9/11 and is a terrorist.
Another of your delusional fantasies.
It is the terrorists who do not want the US installing military bases in
their "holy" lands as in Saudi Arabia,
You are such a propaganda fool. The U.S. did not put bases in their
"holy" lands.
Look up "Bin Sultan Air
Base" -- it was staffed
and run by Americans in
the wake of Gulf War I
and was closed by
Dumber'nyuh, as per
Osama Bin Laden's demand
that armed "infidels" be
expelled from Islam's
"holy land."
Thanks but I already knew of it. And it wasn't in any 'holy land', nor
were/are any of the others.
fundamentalist) Muslims regard
the entire Arabian penninsula as
holy and not to be walked upon
by armed non-Muslims. This is
similar to the stance of
fundamentalist Jews who insist
that Palestine in its entirely
is the promised Jewish homeland,
aka "Eretz Yisroel" (the Land of
Israel), even though locations
of actual Bibically-described
sites and events are relatively
few and far between.
Nonsense and you just toss around 'holy' words and propaganda with
reckless abandon.
Judaism, Christianity, and Islam share the same text of origins as
well as Abraham, the 'promised land' and Eretz Yisroel, with your
opinion about 'frequency of occurrence being irrelevant.
The biblical text (and Jewish, of course) also state that Ishmael went
to the Desert of Paran north of Midyan.
Islam modifies this to Mecca, laying the foundation for claiming
Muhammad as descendent from Ishmael and his conquest of Mecca, from
Medina.
The most generous interpretation of a 'promised' land from the
Medina-Mecca connection is Hijaz, land of the holy cities Mecca and
Medina.
There is no basis in any religious text, Islamic or not, for 'Saudi
Arabia," or any other such reference by either name or geography, as
'holy land'.
do not want the US setting up and/or
supporting puppet dictators as in Iran,
The U.S. did not 'set up' the Ayatollah in Iran
No, we set up his
predecessor, the corrupt
and clueless Shah who
provided Khomeini with a
perfect excuse to stage
his Islamic revolution!
I see you're up on at least one of the more popular left wing myths.
Fact of the matter is Mohammad Reza Pahlavi became Shah of Iran 3
years premature in 1941 when the British and Russians forced his Nazi
sympathizing father, Reza Shah, to abdicate.
You confuse the deposing of
the father
I'm not confusing anything. You claimed the U.S. "set up" the Shah and
it's plain flat false.
with the actual
taking of the reigns of state
by the son well after WWII was
over,
And that is also plain flat false. He took the throne on September 16,
1941.
It doesn't matter when he
was coronated -- he had
no power during the war
and any he had afterward
was with U.S. consent,
hence the post-war taking
of the reigns of state.
There's nothing of
substance below, so I've
snipped your attempt to
make the last Shah
something other than I
U.S. puppet entirely
beholden to his CIA
benefactors.
and was largely by the
hand of the soon-to-be CIA,
then known as the OSS. The
cold war precluded Soviet
participation and the Brits
couldn't have possibly done it
due to the UK's bereft fiscal
condition at the time.
LOL. The whole thing (you're speaking of "Operation Ajax") originated
with the British and Truman refused U.S. participation. They were,
however, successful in getting Eisenhower to participate because of
Soviet incursion into the region.
Iow, "post-war."
It's not a matter of who
The 'problem' was the Soviet-backed Mohammad Mossadegh, who, after
being nominated by the Shah and subsequently elected by the assembly
as Prime Minister, proceeded to dismantle the Constitution.
The entire affair had nothing to do with 'installing the Shah," or any
other euphemism to that effect, as he was the Shah before and the Shah
after. Nor was the Constitution replaced, or any of the government
institutions. Mohammad Mossadegh ceased being Prime Minister and was
replaced by Zahedi.
"installed" him or some
such, it's a matter of
to whom he owned his
power and position --
that would be the CIA,
and that's how America
became Khomeini's
despised and moched
"Great Satan."
The U.S. had nothing to do with it and I say 3 years "premature"
because Reza Shah died in 1944 and Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would have
ascended to the throne at that time anyway, even with no intervention.
Irrelevant, as usual.
Yes, your comments are, as you say, irrelevant.
Pendantic opinion noted/
The
Shah's regime was a U.S. puppet
Lets get definitions down. You simply call anyone who is the least bit
favorable to the U.S. a 'puppet'
No, I call anyone wholly
dependent on U.S. support
a puppet -- of which
there are various degrees
depending on how tight
the strings are. Israel,
being a parliamentary
republic, cannot be a
true U.S. puppet because
its people have a voice
-- but the last Shah had
no such obligation to the
popular will and was thus
a near-perfect puppet,
responsible only to his
American patrons.
and anyone who hates the U.S. ...
what?
An opponent? :-)
Pedantry noted -- the
-- whoever was involved in the
"premature" succession is
entirely beside the point.
It is precisely the point in showing your claim was a lie and now
you're trying to argue any and everything else, except what you said,
to obscure the fact it was a lie.
relevant fact remains:
the last Shah was a U.S.
puppet for all but a few
years of his regime.
Again irrelevant --
During the Shah's reign, Iran celebrated 2,500 years of continuous
monarchy since the founding of the Persian Empire by Cyrus the Great
and, you will note, the U.S. didn't put him on the throne either.
Yes, your comments are, as you say, irrelevant.
the
Pahlavi dynasty had no blood
ties to any other monarch and
lasted only two generations.
If you think there was a constant 'blood line' over 2500 years, except
for that dastardly last usurper (who, btw, was the FATHER of the Shah
you claim the U.S. 'set up', further proving the lie of the lie), then
you are, indeed, delusional.
More pedantry noted. I
never stated that the last
Shah with "installed" or
some such by the U.S.,
only that he was for all
intents and purposes a
U.S. puppet.
Fine point of chronology
Moreover, the general disdain
of Iranians for the last Shah
had nothing to do with
monarchy per se -- it was all
about how corrupt and brutal
that particular regime was!
No one claimed the last Shah was a messiah or saint. The discussion
point was your lie that the U.S. 'set up' the Shah when, in fact, the
U.S. had nothing to do with it and Iran had a 2500 year monarchy at
the time.
taken, but irrelevant to
the fact that the last
Shah was a U.S. puppet.
and, in case you
hadn't noticed, aren't particularly 'supportive' of it.
do not want the US exploiting their
resources - oil,
Paying them $60 bucks a barrel is sure some 'exploitation', all right.
Paying *who*, schmuck?
The countries it comes from, schmuck.
True enough --
Good. So we've established that the U.S. paying for oil is not the
U.S. 'exploiting' anyone.
but only to the
corrupt *governments* of those
countries.
Well, that's what happens when governments nationalizes private
industry but I'd wager you think it's a Jim Dandy fine idea and admire
Chavez for doing it.
All I know is that my local
Citgo station is the
cheapest in town -- I'm no
fan of Chavez's tactics or
of the banana republic idea
of a "President For Life"
that he's pursuing, but he
is one helluva more popular
support in his country than
Dumber'nyuh has in ours!
Hmm, now how needs some
That combined with
poltical repression is what
fuels resentment of such so-
called "moderate" regimes and
their western patrons!
Oh there's no doubt that in any country there's a dissatisfied group
that would love for the U.S. to aid them in a revolution and, by the
same token, a counter group who'll hate the U.S if they did.
But you talking about 'political repression' in the context of Muslim
countries, and then blaming it on the U.S., when in the entire history
of Muslim nations, sultanates, dictatorships, and kingdoms have been
the time immemorial norm, is hilarious.
I suppose we're responsible for Cyrus the Great, too, and Muslims
over-running the Byzantine Empire.
correction on chronology?
Squabbles between pettyDo you think anyone
other than big oil
companies of corrupt
puppet dictatorships
sees a penny of those
ginormous petrodollars?
They're nationalized by their own self made 'puppets' and none of the
oil companies were any too pleased about it at the time either.
tyrants and big oil
companies are beside the
point --
Not hardly.
Opinion noted.
Why not, that's how the
regardless of
which of them prevails,
the people are left poor
despite the close
proximity of enourmous
unearned wealth.
You hit on a keyword: "unearned."
This
is a recipe for
resentment and violence.
It is when you have demagogues whipping up violence for that good old
fashioned 'rape, pillage, loot, burn' tradition to acquiring "unearned
wealth." Seems easier to steal it, don't it?
Saudi royals did it.
The de facto stateand do not want to adopt the culture of the US or it's predominent
religion.
The U.S. never even so much as 'asked' them to do either.
religion of American
foreign policy is "The
Green God"
How positively rude of us to engage in free trade and pay people for
their goods.
If we were actually paying
the "people" of those
countries,
And how do 'we' do that? Overthrow the government you don't like and
put in which one you'll then claim is a 'puppet'?
Nope, a much subtler
approach is called for.
Oh yeah, it's my fault!
we'd have few
or no problems over there.
I've never heard anything so ridiculous in all my life. "No problems."
ROTFLOL
Moreover, in terms of their
culture, our "free trade"
mantra is synonymous with
"The Green God" -- when
puppet tyrannies and
essentially stateless
corporations are the only
"people" that count, the
multitudes left out of the
deal understandably become
dangerous malcontents.
No, it's synonymous with "The Green God" because demagogues like you
create the myth and use it to foment hatred
You don't believe Mubarek
You, no doubt, prefer the old 'traditional' rape, pillage, loot, burn
approach.
That approach is alive and
well in the way most of our
puppets in the region got
into power and continue to
hold on to it.
It's obvious you have no idea how they got into power, or much else
other than your word propaganda.
et al rule by thuggery
very much as Saddam
Hussein did? OK, noted.
Irrelevant -- the was before
-- iow, huge
profits no matter who is
destroyed by that motive!
The unstated motive for
the Iraq invasion and
occupation is the mideast's
acceptance of the "Green
God" and American
commercialism as their de
facto religion.
The reason was to prevent a lunatic dictator with delusions of
becoming the next Saladin
In fact, he was no more
capable of becoming some
sort of conquerer than
Willam Hung was capable
of singing at the time we
invaded -- iow, his
delusions were a danger
to nobody outside his own
country.
Tell that to the millions dead in the Iran-Iraq war, the Kuwaitis, and
the masses murdered in his own country, not to mention the Saudis
eyeballing his tank battalions on the border.
Gulf War I and the thorough
castration of Iraq's miitary.
Even our "moderate" friends
in the region knew he was
utterly toothless -- that's
why they wanted nothing to do
with the last invasion: there
was no threat to counter!
from invading more countries and developing
more WMD
Both of these were
effectively prevented
before the invasion and
would have remained so.
False. France and Russia had been doing everything they could to get
sanctions removed and were already signing contracts that could only
be implemented when that was accomplished.
The 10 year old crisis came to a head specifically because containment
was in imminent collapse and it was either then or let him loose.
There was no collapse,
and we could deal with
any French or Russian
interests a lot more
easily and cheaply than
what this debacle has
cost in blood and
treasure -- shoot, it
would be vastly more
effective to have bought
them off outright!
and spreading them around to other lunatics who fancy
themselves god's enforcer
Now you're sharing Cheney's
faux (because even he's not
dumb enough to actually
believe it) delusion that
Saddam Hussein was allied
with religious fanatics
when it is well known that
he was essentially an Arab
nationalist hoodlum
universally despised by
Muslim clerics and their
followers of all stripes.
He didn't give a tinker's dam about the Palestinians either but
enjoyed rewarding suicide bomber because it served his agenda.
He cut checks to homicide
bombers' families -- but
not even close to as many
as those from benefactors
in our great regional
ally, Saudi Arabia.
Moreover, there is no
evidence whatsoever that
he cut any checks to Al
Qaeda or any other fundy
fanatic organization --
the Palestinian "cause,"
such as it is is an Arab
nationalist endeavor by
definition, any religious
component being a recent
afterthought.
It's not that they won't
And you are pathetically naive to imagine even people who supposedly
'despise each other won't work together against a common enemy.
in a general sense, it's
just that Saddam Hussein
didn't and that fact was
well known to all
concerned.
Perhaps, but I'm not a
and think flying planes into skyscrapers isThat doesn't wash any
a Jim Dandy idea.
better coming from you
than it did from Cheney
-- you're both
disengenuous assholes.
You're just a fool.
liar like you two.
You would know "reality"
We wouldn't have this problem if we as an alleged Christian nation
(according to Falwell, Robertson, Bush, Reagan, Lump*** and bunch
of conservative creeps who want to remove the separation of church and
state) would do the Christian thing of stop fucking with those people
and their country, ask forgiveness for the past injustices the US imposed
upon them and to make amends. But as a "Christian" nation instead
we retailiate with the same role as the bully that they have to fight against
with dirty tricks and it never fucking ends.
Pure unadulterated crap.
Well, your incompetent "solution" isn't working.
Actually, it is. What isn't happening is a 10 minute microwave dinner
solution to satisfy the instant, just drop in water and stir, kool-aid
crowd.
Ed is right, it's not
working at all
In fact, it is.
You share at least one
trait with the late Saddam
Hussein -- you're both
obviously delusional.
No, I just understand words and reality.
if it crawled into your
ear and bellowed the
Muslim sabbath call to
prayer.
"Working," in this context, does not mean "finished" nor does it mean
"perfect."
The point is, it doesn't
even mean "possible" at
this point -- there's
nothing more pathetic
than someone who outright
refuses to notice that
this pooch has been
thoroughly screwed.
You, on the other hand, define "working" as requiring both so as long
as things are not 'perfect you claim nothing is 'working'. That's a
farce.
I don't demand perfection
-- I demand some evidence
of substantial progress
and it has never been
forthcoming, undoubtedly
because it doesn't exist!
So far, Saddam is gone, the Nazi aligned Baathist party is pretty much
dead, except in Syria, a Constitution has been written, voted in, and
a full fledged government under that aegis elected.
Aka the defact Islamic
Republic of Iraq --
great job, Mr. President.
There is still domestic unrest
It's called "civil war."
but the good news on that front is an
anti-Al Qaeda backlash that started in the West is moving across the
country eastward.
Not signficant, because
"Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia"
isn't and never was a
major factor in the
ongoing civil war -- they
just get in the way, and
both the ex-Baathists and
the Shiite majority have
never had any real use
for them or any interest
in their delusional future
caliphate. As long as
they were effectively
harrassing Americans,
they were tolerated -- so
much for even a post-
invasion Al Qaeda threat
from Iraq. Good point,
but not even close to
the progress duly
expected after so many
bloody years and so much
borrowed money!
Neither Nam nor anything
-- and the
American people are
rightfully losing patience
Because they're used to 10 minute microwave meals and TV episodes
resolved in prime time.
Given a righteous cause,
the American people are
famously capable of
saintlike patience and
pretty much any sacrifice
short of deliberate
martyrdom -- what's missing
here is a suitable cause!
You must be on another planet because post Vietnam the historical
record is precisely the opposite. And that fact has not gone unnoticed
by Bin Laden.
subsequent was a suitable
cause for full national
engagement -- even Korea
was marginal in that
respect. On the other
hand, the American people
were famously patient
with regard to the cold
war as a whole, as long
as it was being fought
wisely and effectively
(hence the uncertainty
about Korea and the lack
of support for the Nam
debacle).
Sure sonny, I believe
Plus a barrage of clueless left wing
pontificates who care for nothing but their own aggrandizement.
Poor baby -- would you like
some cheese with your whine?
It was stated with firm disdain and without a hint of whine to it.
that and *** Cheney
too.
Irrelevant ad hominem
All together now, let's make
believe that Dumber'nyuh,
Cheney, & Co. aren't
megalomanaical self-
aggrandizers in way over
their empty heads!
Don't disrupt your delusions, they're all you've got.
noted -- some folks
just refuse to notice
mendacity and
ineptitude even when
they're chewing away
at generations of this
country's future.
with paying for this
obvious and ongoing
failure with blood and
treasure ad infinitum et
ad nauseam! We have
already been in Iraq for
longer than WWII in its
entirety
And Iraq would be 'over' too if we leveled it flat to the ground like
happened to Germany in WWII but the idea is to avoid WWIII and the
flattening of entire countries.
Rumsfeld's "idea" was that
successful wars consist of
defeating armies with better
armies
You, of course, being a military genius, propose having a worse army.
The war isn't won until
there's a peaceful,
stable outcome -- and
Rumsfeld, like McCain,
is a naval aviator who
knows next to nothing
about the reality of
ground warfare. That
shows in the former's
performance in office
and the latter's
campaign rhetoric.
-- another dumb***
to add to the GOP clown
inventory. Moreover,
reducing Iraq to rubble at
the cost of literally
millions of innocent lives
That, genius, is why we don't do it.
Instead, we've arranged
for "only" hundreds of
thousands of innocent
civilians to die -- with
no good end in sight.
Brilliant.
would have spawned an
explosion of terrorism all
over the world,
It's good you're finally seeing the wisdom of it.
So instead, we happily
facilitated what amounts
to the a worldwide death
of a thousand cuts
instead -- with "wisdom"
like that, it's hard to
even imagine what
foolishness would look
like. Fortunately, we
have you as an exemplar.
Only to one burdened with
especially
against the so- called
"moderate" puppet regimes
in the region. Iow, your
proposal is not only
disgustingly brutal, it's
also counterproductive.
Let's see, you just explained good reasons for doing it the way we are
but now claim it's 'counterproductive'. The natural flow of logic is
you must prefer to flatten entire countries.
a congenitally illogical
brain.
That takes time.
If there was the slightest
sign of progress,
There is to anyone who bothers to look.
Name one -- "Al Qaeda in
Mesopotamia" doesn't
count, since it doesn't
amount to more than a
bucket in an ocean of
violence over there.
But then you don't really care
because looking would interfere with your propaganda.
Puh-leeze -- over five
years of occupation and
the Iraqi government
can field one single
combat-ready batallion,
and Iraqi policement
might as well have
targets painted on
their asses.
That's what got us into this
the
American people would be
patient. There isn't and
they're not.
They're not because they're being fed only half truths and lies.
debacle -- and they came
from Dumber'nyuh and his
minions.
But, then, it also doesn't result in battles, likeTrue enough,
WWII, where you lose more men in one day than the entire Iraq conflict
from beginning to end.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
but the blood
spilled and treasure
expended in WWII bought
something --
And so will a stable democratic government in the Middle East.
Iran is a stable democratic
government in the Middle
East -- if its constitution
is any guide, the Iraqi
government aspires to be
its near-twin. Thank you,
President ***-For-Brains!
the Iraq
occupation has triggered
an ongoing bloodbath among
the very people we were
supposedly "liberating,"
No, the enemy we began fighting on 9-11 has moved into that arena to
continue fighting. Strange as it may seem, enemies have a tendency to
do that sort of thing.
Al Qaeda has nover been
a major factor in the
Iraq insurgency cum
civil war -- they (the
so-called "Al Qaeda in
Mesopotamia") grab some
headlines, but they're
more of a minor
irritant than a
significant force over
there. Iow, by and
large we're caught in
the crossfire of a
civil war and are not
fighting our real
adversary in Iraq at
all -- Iraq is drawing
off resources and
national will needed
to prevail against the
actual threat we face.
Straw man -- nobody
and there's neither an end
to that in sight nor a
military solution avaliable.
A tribute to your blind lack of vision and military acumen.
Liberals just love babbling nonsense as 'fact'. Like "you can't
militarily win a civil war." Dern unfortunate for the Confederacy no
one in the Union knew that at the time.
Colin Powell warned Dumber'yuh-- the American
people aren't a "drop in
water and stir, kool-aid
crowd" at all, and they
have the right to demand
more from their leaders
than continuing policy
failure and deterioration
of their country's
position and reputation
in the world! Iow, we've
been patient and our
patience is at an end --
deal with it.
I am 'dealing with it'. What I don't want to deal with is an Al Qaeda,
or other fundamentalist, running Iraq with reconstituted WMD.
about The Pottery Barn Rule.
Too bad you don't listen to your own source.
The 'lesson' was "you break it you fix it." You want to wring your
hands and leave the broken pottery on the floor.
Iraq already has a
constitution for a de facto
Islamic Republic --
A contradiction in terms. "Democracy' is rule under man made law, by
the will of the people, and a 'true' Islamic State suffers no 'will of
the people' as God's will is what rules.
mentioned "democracy"
until you just did.
The Iraqi Constitution
explictly cites Islam
as its source and
foundation -- elections
can't and won't change
such a fundament. The
Iraqis have chosen a
theocracy with some
democratic trappings --
those in power may
change, but reliance on
the Prophet and his
book are right there in
black and white.
that is
the sentiment of the people
after decades under Saddam
Hussein and it will not be
changed by American troops
continuing to die over there,
even given a few more decades
of occupation. If anything,
the continued presence of our
people in Iraq is fueling the
very phenomena you fear!
You have no idea what the 'will of the people' is nor do you,
apparently, have any understanding of what an Islamic State is to Al
Qaeda.
Look, either Al Qaeda is in
eclipse and decline in Iraq
or it gets to define what
"an Islamic State" is over
there. Which is it? Even
Iran doesn't meet Al Qaeda
criteria for "an Islamic
State."
For you it's just 'words' to bandy around in whatever manner you
please.
Mirror's up, Flopsweat!
However, let's clean the slate
so to speak and just ignore arguing about the best solution, because I would like
your honest answers about the following:
I don't believe that for a moment but, for the sake of discussion,
I'll pretend there's a rat's chance in hell you half way meant it..
What is the root cause of terrorism?
Terrorism is a tactic. The 'root cause' is that Al Qaeda, and like
minded Islamists ala the Qutb philosophy, chose it to further their
agenda.
That is not a cause --
It's the 'root' where radical Islam diverges from the rest.
You continue to miss the
point.
Nope. It's you who are clueless even in the face of having it
explained to you.
You can explain all the
irrelevant crap you want,
you've still missed the
point.
Radical Islam
provides a religious cum
ideological rationale,
but it is not the root
cause of terrorism.
What you fancifully imagine as a "religious cum ideological rationale'
was around for over a thousand years before the U.S. decided to duke
it out with fat King George.
We weren't there, no our fault.
I never said the U.S. was
responsible for the
rationale -- we are largely
responsible for the root
cause, however.
You have your rationalizations backwards.
No, I do not -- and you
either don't know or
can't face the root
cause.
I'm trying to guide you to
answer the damned
question and stop
evading it. Why do
people in general
Speak for yourself, pal.
Stupid interjection noted.
It was your stupid generalization about "people in general" and I
still say speak for yourself.
the root cause -- you can
lead a horse's ass to
answers, but you can't
make him think.....oh well,
no good deed goes
unpunished I suppose.
and
radical Islamists in
particular turn to
terrorism,
Because killing infidels and apostates is perfectly fine and, as they
have explicitly stated, they love death as much as you love life.
Meaning, kill us, eh, we go to Allah, but you'll run like a scared
rabbit if we kill a few of you.
They've stated it over and over and you're providing the 'proof' of
it.
You've missed the point again
No, you being clueless is the point.
Mirror's up again --
you're stymied in
ignorance and
projecting like a
Todd-AO movie!
-- we're talking root causes,
not stated rationales direct
from propagandists.
Wrong. You're talking about "rationales direct
from propagandists" and believing every blessed one of them.
The root cause has nothing
to do with propaganda and
can be easily deduced --
there's another clue, not
that you're capable of
doing anything with it.
I'm talking about what Al Qaeda's goal is, not the 'excuse' of the
moment.
Al Qaeda's goal has nothing
to do with the root cause.
Once again, irrelevant to
And it doesn't make a bit of difference what you do because your
infidel 'liberal' socialist vision is antithetical to everything
radical Islamists believe in.
the issue at hand, which
transcends radical Islam in
it's entirely but is
necessary to virtually all
terrorism as we know it.
You're fresh out of pejorative
what is the
"root cause" Ed asked
you to state?
And I answered it, below.
You're just flat out wrong.
You're just plain clueless
adjectives -- frustrated by
your inability/unwillingness
to state the root cause, no
doubt....
Nope, not even close. The
Qur?an 8:67 It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until
he has made a great slaughter in the land.
Qur?an 8:12 I shall terrorize the infidels. So wound their bodies and
incapacitate them because they oppose Allah and His Apostle.
Those excerpts comprise
scriptural rationales
That's what the scripture reference says, yes. How perceptive of you
to notice the obvious.
That's better than you've
managed so far.
and are clearly not the
"root cause" requested.
Try reading the whole message.
I did, the root cause ain't
there.
Yes, it is.
As I've already explained, you're under the delusion that Islamists
share *YOUR* 'vision' of things. They don't and everything *YOU*
imagine is a 'good deal' is utterly irrelevant.
root cause is much more
universal, and transcends
any ideology, mine included.
A Jewish or Christian
terrorist could find
similar rationales in
the Old Testament with
ease
First. Christian guidance comes from the New Testament and, second, if
anyone were using the 'rationale' you claim they'd be on the wrong end
of an M-16 too.
Whatever that's supposed
to prove or even mean....
The 'first' part is in reply to your claim that just any ole quote
from the bible can be taken in 'the same way' as a quote from the
Qu'ran. It can't and that you think so exposes your unfamiliarity with
Christian philosophy.
Christians can always resort
to the Hebrew Bible, which
is still part of their canon
-- American fundy Christians
do it all the time to
rationalize their disdain
for gays and opposition to
abortion, for example.
OK, for whatever little
The 'second' part explains that it isn't the 'religion' but the acts
themselves and 'excuses' aren't justification whether the perpetrator
had deluded themselves into thinking so or not.
that's worth here...
Your local recruiting
-- the Crusaders
of medieval times
News flash, this isn't the 12'th century.
In Muslim cultures, especially
among Arabs, the Crusade might
as well have happened
yesterday.
Then someone needs to send them a news flash too because it isn't an
'excuse' and I am not about to let the killing of innocents be
'justified' over events 500 years ago.
office awaits your visit,
chickenhawk. I'm not
condoning atrocities,
just explaining a
cultural mindset that's
relevant and seemingly
eludes you -- the Arab
and Muslim worlds largely
comprise grudge-holding
cultures that make our
Hatfields and McCoys look
like a Quaker coffee
klatsch, and if you're
going to prevail over
there you have to
understand that trait and
work within those
cultures. Dumber'yuh's
own literal use of the
word "crusade" in his
"Axis of Evil" speech was
an early sign that the
administration had no
idea whatsoever what they
were getting into. None.
One does wonder, though, how in the world they missed the fact of itNow *that's* irrelevant --
being god's will for Islam to conquer the Byzantine Empire. Well,
that's infidels for you.
About time you got it.
Slow and steady wins the
race, but you're downright
stopped -- reminds me of
the Iraq quagmire....
but
culturally the Crusades loom
very large in the middle east
and are still discussed daily
in mosques and other male-
dominated social settings. If
you want to understand
I already understand. But, again, I'm not going to condone or excuse
murder because of it.
Me neither, as stated
a ways back.
its
significance among those
people, take the grudges still
carried in the American south
over The Civil War and
Reconstruction,
And if they went around blowing people up there'd be another war.
No there would not --
there'd be a criminal
manhunt and a
prosecution much like
what happened to
McVeigh.
than amplify
them through a dimed Dual
Showman and keep replaying
them for 800 years -- that's
what we're up against when we
try to push westernization,
secularization, and free
market ideology in today's
middle east.
So your solution is if there's been 800 years of irrational cooking to
leave it cook more and more, or submit.
No, but cultural transformations
can't be effectively carried out
via military force, at least not
when there's an armed populace
involved and the number of
military boots on the ground is
*far* short of Petraeus's (he
wrote the book on the subject)
own minimum figure for effective
counterinsurgency! That sort of
effort requires a deep
understanding of the existing
culture, which is clearly and
entirely absent in what the
Dumber'nyuh adminstration has
done and continues to do in Iraq.
Ironically enough, Saddam
Hussein was attempting much
the same thing via his usual
brutal means -- and now that
he's out of power, all the
old grudges (both against
the west and among Iraqis)
are in full, bloody play.
He was doing 'much the same thing' as *they* want to do. He was just a
'secular' (have to put that in '' because of all his praise Allah
chanting and decrees for everyone to read the Qu'ran) tyrant but that
is *not* what we are doing.
We want to transform Iraq
into what amounts to a
western culture with a
mere veneer of Arab and
Muslim tradition. So did
he -- that's the parallel.
I'm not saying he was
That is one of the great hypocrisies of the left. They rail about
supposed 'puppet dictatorships' and then, in the next breath, explain
how the dictator was 'just the thing' to keep those <insert latest
bigotry. under control.
"just the thing," merely
that he was a dedicated
and rather effective
secularizer/westernizer
in the context of the
wider Arab/Muslim world.
For example, under his
regime women had more
rights, had access to
more education, and held
more responsible positions
in government and commerce
than anywhere else in the
Arab world, including
today's occupied Iraq with
its Sharia-influenced
constitution -- like Tito
in The Balkans, he was a
sumbitch, but an effective
one. Our major miracle
over there is making
millions of Iraqis regard
the *** with near-fond
nostalgia!
had
much higher-ranking
clergy behind than than
Al Qaeda does,
Al Qaeda does not share your opinion of religious authority.
I doubt they share my
opinion of anything
Which is why none of your 'solutions' could ever have any impact and
why your estimation of what's an 'excuse' vs 'root cause' completely
misses the mark.
When you know the root
cause (which you don't),
you'll understand what
expertise is required to
devise a winning strategy.
It would also be plain to
you (as it was to several
four-stars who voiced
severe objections and paid
the price) that Rumsfeld's
approach was doomed from
the gitgo because it was
designed to defeat an army
rather than to secure real
estate and transform a
society.
That make no sense --
-- and
I'm more than OK with that.
Then you should get out of the game because without knowing what their
'opinions' are everything else is just hot air.
not surprising...
That's more than fine with meso let's
not confuse excuses
with the actual cause.
Al Qaeda does not share your heretical disdain of god's word.
-- I've always been a heretic
and consider in an honorable
state. :-)
It's why you have no idea about 'root causes'.
The root cause has nothing
to do with anyone's idea of
heresy or, for that matter,
religion.
Al Qaeda is not a root cause
I didn't say "Al Qaeda" was a root cause and, in fact, explicitly
explained they weren't.
Agreement noted. Thanks.
Nope, "fundamentalist Islam"
-- Al Qaeda simply took
advantage of the situation,
providing a religious
rationale and leadership.
Wrong. Fundamentalist Islam *IS* the cause.
is an exploiter of a long-
extant situation.
The root cause is not "aI read it and you're wrong.
So, what is the root
cause of terrorism,
Flopsweat?
If you could read you'd see I answered it.
It's OK not to know -- but
it does take a functioning
adult psyche to admit to it.
The fact that you're, as you said, a heretic explains why you are
utterly unable to understand, in even the slightest, a religious
motivation.
religious motivation" --
all that *** is entirely
post facto in respect to
the root cause.
Oh good, let's pretend youIOW, why were those certain people allegedly
from the Middle East (Saudis mostly) so intent on blowing up the WTC with the
failed attempt the first time and then 9/11? What was their motivation?
Short sighted question. It's like asking why the U.S. invaded Sicily
in WWII.
No parallel whatsoever.
Yes, there is and if you bothered with 2 seconds of thought you might
be able to grasp it. Well, probably not but I'm an optimist.
Sicily was territory of a
nation (Italy) that was
at war with the U.S.
)another nation) and
occupied by troops of a
third nation, Germany,
that had also declared
war.
All of which is irrelevant. The point is the invasion of Sicily was
not 'the goal', it was an intermediate strategy toward a larger goal
so asking only one 'why' of a 'bit' misses the 'root cause'. But,
then, if you'd have bothered to read one more sentence down before
your silly "let's take one line at a time" nonsense you'd have seen
that.
It certainly happened. And the 'goal' was to take Sicily. And
there was surely a 'motivation' behind it but 'Sicily', per see,
wasn't it, past being a strategy toward a larger goal.
That larger goal was the
defeat of the Axis
powers in a world war --
Certainly closer but that wasn't the 'end goal' either. Read
Roosevelt's address to the nation.
what is the equivalent
goal of the 9/11 mass
murders?
Already told you, down below. Oh, that's right. You don't actually
care about the 'reason' you just want to hack individual sentences.
It's not hard
to find -- iirc is was
published by Al Qaeda
almost immediately after
the atrocities were
committed and probably
beforehand.
I doubt you read Al Qaeda's declaration and I'd wager you didn't read
Hitler's 'reasons' for invading Poland either. I also doubt you'd
understand either even if you did but it seems clear you'd buy
whatever a dictator, or terrorist, says hook, line, and sinker.
haven't been citing Al
Qaeda six ways to Sunday
yourself --
Why would we need to pretend?
Because you've done exactly
that -- you buy propaganda
as whole truth when it
suits your rhetorical
purpose, then discredit for
what it is when it doesn't!
Spare me the pedantry.
what a joke!
Man, but your dense. Let's take a letter from Hitler to Rommel
discussing strategy in WWII. Would you think it might be enlightening?
Now, take a public speech by Hitler. Do you have the same degree of
confidence in the truthfulness of it?
We're so far off the nominal
So now 9/11 stands alone,Qur?an 9:5 Fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them,
take them captive, harass them, lie in wait and ambush them using
every stratagem of war.
Do you think it was a strike against the USA or against the world (being the WORLD
Trade Center)?
A strike against the U.S.A.
It was against more than
than just the U.S. -- as
subequent attacks elsewhere
in the world demonstrated.
The other attacks were not 9-11.
unrelated to previous and
subsequented atrocities?
No, but when that's what was asked about then that's the topic.
"topic" here it's absurd to
pretend there is one --
other than the elusive root
cause of terrorism.
Like what was their beef?
Legion and there is just about nothing that isn't 'their beef'. Qutb
was supposedly an admirer of the U.S. till he visited in 1951 where he
was shocked at materialism, individual freedom, capitalism, poor
haircuts, triviality, enthusiasm for sports, and "animal-like" mixing
of the sexes (which went on even in churches).
There was a very specific
beef and it was published
by Al Qaeda. Look it up
and learn
I already have, plus a lot more.
Go back and read the Sicily paragraph.
No thanks, one dose of
nonsense that again misses
the point of "root causes"
in more than enough!
Well, I knew you'd remain as ignorant as the first time around.
What you call the 'specific beef' is no different than Sicily being
the 'specific reason' for fighting in WWII.
That analogy is so tortured
I'm sure it's prohibited by
some document signed in
Geneva.
Little or no evidence of
-- what you've
posted here is a good
general insight into the
Al Qaeda mindset,
Keep working on it and do some research.
You first.
Not only absurd for you to stay in ignorance 'because' of someone
else but I already have.
that -- no sale.
What is "lack comprehension?"Still missing -- sad, really....
but it
is neither the "beef" in
question nor is it the
root cause of terrorism
requested by Ed.
It most certainly is and if you would read their own 'strategy' papers
to each other you might get a clue.
Yep, your complete lack comprehension is legendary.
If you're saying I don't
comprehend what you lack, I
assure you you're wrong --
that's more self-evident than
all Jefferson's famous
truthes combined!
When folks are devoid of
True enough --He wrote "the American girl is well acquainted with her body's
seductive capacity. She knows it lies in the face, and in expressive
eyes, and thirsty lips. She knows seductiveness lies in the round
breasts, the full buttocks, and in the shapely thighs, sleek legs and
she shows all this and does not hide it."
And
"Jazz is his preferred music, and it is created by Negroes to satisfy
their love of noise and to whet their sexual desires ... "
Both of those statements
could have come from an
American "Christian"
segregationist of the
same era -- or from
Jerry Falwell up until
a couple of days ago.
But they didn't add you should kill the infidels for it and that war
is required.
Finally getting somewhere.
but Falwell
and his ilk have access to
considerable political
power, which makea violence
unnecessary and extremely
counterproductive to their
dominionist goals in what
is a constitutionally
secular society.
Peaceful persuasion vs murder is precisely the point, with the later
being the problem.
access to (what they feel
is sufficient) political
power, they often turn to
violence -- look up
"Revolution, American"
for one familiar example.
Given such access,
violence is quite rare
(e.g. abortion clinic
bombings), without it
violence tends to become
s.o.p. (e.g. much of the
middle east today).
There, more hints at that
slippery root cause forya!
Moreover,
Falwell & Co. can't make a
case for a foreign boogie
man like Al Qaeda can
Of course they could. And in the same manner as well. You're just
sucker enough to buy the 'crusade' line but the reverse could just as
easily be used, and in the same manner. After all, the 'crusades'
mostly failed but Islam wiped out the largest Christian Empire on the
planet, not to mention taking half of Europe and, the Coup de Gras,
the *real* "Holy Land" as described in their own holy texts.
Obviously true, and
equally despicable --
however, the final
expulsion of the Moors
from Spain was hardly
an occasion to
celebrate given what
had ensued by the 15th
century, which made
the Moorish rule look
great by comparison.
Justification is not my
(with
our ongoing help, of course).
Mostly yours as I have yet to see you do anything but try to explain
how 'justified' they are.
goal -- I certainly
don't see terrorism as
justifiable in any way
shape or form, and that
includes military
terrorism (e.g. bombing
or shelling civilians
for the sake of "shock
and awe," aka terror).
My being an independent
Al Qaeda is irrelevant to theIn other words, the U.S. is everything evil and corrupt.. As Qutb
explained in Ma'alim fi-l-Tariq, anything non-Islamic was evil and
corrupt, while following Sharia as a complete system extending into
all aspects of life, would bring every kind of benefit to humanity,
from personal and social peace, to the "treasures" of the universe.
Again, a religious rationale
-- neither a specific beef
nor a root cause.
Al Qaeda does not share your heretical disdain for the word of God.
root cause -- they simply
exploit it.
You being a heretic explains why you're clueless.
thinker explains my
clarity, which apparently
allows me to see the
self-evident when you
cannot. Que lastima....
I've never for a moment
At least take a credibleMore of the same follows
-- elaborate evasions of
the questions at hand!
You're the one evading.
guess -- to be more obvious,
it would have to crawl into
your ear and sing to you!
You got it right that you're just guessing but, as I've already
explained, you 'guess' that they share your views about what's
'important' and they plain flat don't.
entertained any such
thought -- fundys of all
stripes are about as
alien to yours truly as
creatures of a common
species can get, but
that doesn't mean I don't
strive to understand them.
[snipped]
The immediate strategy is Al Qaeda perceives the U.S. as the primary
barrier to reconstituting the Caliphate and a 'true' Islamic State,
and by "State' they mean Ummah, the community or Nation of all
Muslims, which would include Spain, Africa from the equator up, the
Middle East, Turkey, portions of Eastern Europe, the Caucuses,
sections of Southern Russia, Pakistan, India, and Southeast Asia. Plus
probably a few I missed off the top of my head.
That's not all you missed
-- you're confusing the
philosophical underpinnings
of radical Wahhibist Islam
Salafism
with the specific beef that
triggered the 9/11 atrocties
and the generalized root
cause of terrorism.
No, I'm not. You're confusing a short term strategy toward a larger
goal as a 'root cause' and, further, mistaking deliberate propaganda
issued by an attacker as valid.
All Hitler wanted was the Sudetenland, remember? That is, after all he
wanted was Austria and before all he wanted was Poland.
Bin Laden's model is Afghanistan where, according to his view, He and
his mujahadeen, by the will of Allah, drove out the Soviets. And, as
he sees it, the Soviet Union collapsed right afterward as a result of
his jihad. And then the Afghan communist regime collapsed and the
Taliban, a 'true Islamic leadership, came to power.
That forms the basis of his "the far enemy" strategy where, in his
theory, destroy the U.S. (inevitable and he estimates 10 years because
that's how long the Soviet Union lasted) and then the local Muslim
governments will naturally fall, like in Afghanistan,
Afghanistan didn't have a
"local Muslim government"
-- it had a local Muslim
set up as a puppet by the
Soviets.
That's what I said.
The various
Kings, Emirs, and
dictators currently
supported by the U.S. in
the middle east and
adjoining southwest Asia
exist in much the same
way, with the U.S. taking
the role of the Soviets
Utter nonsense. We didn't set those governments up and unless you're
suggesting we dance into those regions overthrowing everyone and doing
exactly what you falsely claim, and presumably object to, then how
would you suggest the world do business with each other?
I would suggest that
western governments use
the power of the purse
to emphatically nudge
those regimes toward
reasonable democratic
reforms --
So you're all for coercion by "The Green God."
You use what you've got,
for starters -- the ends
(peace as contrasted to
crass avarice) matter.
Moreover, I don't
advocate imposing
western commercialism on
populaces, but rather
using it wisely where
it's already in play.
Hypocrite.
Don't you wish...
without that,
the only alternative to
U.S.-backed puppets will
continue to be Islamic
radicals.
That's just plain silly and, hate to burst your bubble, but even if
your "Green God" created absolutely 'perfect' democratic governments
it would not please Al Qaeda even one little bit.
I don't care if Al Qaeda
is displeased -- take
away the root cause and
they're just another
cult of cranks clamoring
for what they can never
obtain.
I would also
initiate an equivalent
to the Manhattan Project
or the Apollo program to
wean us off the (fast
dwindling) resources
that bring western
capital to the middle
east in the first place.
The Manhattan Project worked because the science of it was known, it
was a matter of solving technical problems, but your fantasy ain't
going to happen because the science ain't there.
You have no fucking idea
if the science is there
or not -- the first thing
to be determined is the
most feasible technical
means to the goal, which
may well be multiple.
On what planet?
Just a couple of ideas
among many that at least
stand a chance of working,
unlike the current
debacle of a non-plan.
The current plan is the only one that *can* work.
I don't pretend to have any-- by and large, these
rulers have no more of a
legitimate constituency
than Saddam Hussein did,
and our support of them
earns the U.S. the emnity
of the people they
continue to tyrannize,
pretty much driving them
into the waiting arms of
Al Qaeda and other violent
radical movements.
So your 'great plan' is to overthrow them all or, better yet, recreate
the Iranian revolution fiasco over and over.
"great plan" --
Then you shouldn't be pontificating.
Planning takes expertise,
but it doesn't take an
expert to see what plainly
does not and cannot work
-- e.g. you don't have to
be an automotive engineer
or even a mechanic do know
when your car won't start.
What Dumber'nyuh and Co.
keep doing is replacing
the battery when their
damned vehicle's just
plain out of fuel.
Stay or leave, same
but at least
I know that the current non-
plan, which has already
pretty much recreated the
Iranian revolution fiasco in
Iraq and stirred the pot of
terrorism around the world,
doesn't stand a ghost of a
chance of producing anything
but heartaches and headaches
for all concerned.
You're projecting the results of *YOUR* 'non-plan' to cut and run, and
accurately stated the consequences if it.
result -- who in his
right mind would stay?
Redeploy elsewhere in
the region, and get
some people with the
requisite know-how to
devise a workable plan
-- that's as much of a
"plan" as this non-
expert can suggest.
Dumber'nyuh and Cheney
consistently ignored
and often forced out
the available experts,
and instead relied on
the ivory tower neocon
cabal's baseless
assurances of success
and Rumsfeld untenable
warfare theories --
we're living with the
results and they stink
to the heavens.
and theA pipedream that I'm quite
Caliphate will rise from the ashes forming an Islamic empire, like the
good ole' days, and they can get on with the original mission of
converting the remaining non-believers to the truth.
sure even Bin Laden doesn't
believe will ever come true
-- Islam itself is too
fractured for any such
unified rule to ever happen,
as the Shiite-Sunni civil
war in Iraq demonstrates!
In the first place, what *you* may think possible is irrelevant to
what motivates Al Qaeda, and that was the question asked.
Nobody asked "what motivates
Al Qaeda,"
Al Qaeda claims the titular head of it.
Non sequitur par exellence.
the question at
hand is the root cause of
terrorism.
And, as a heretic, you'll never understand it.
On the contrary, any
adult human with a
measurable three-digit
IQ can -- I've been
hoping all along those
criteria didn't leave
you out, but I'm an
optimist about people.
Secondly, if you want to know what to 'give away' you need to know
what the other side really wants and consulting Chamberlain on how
well 'one at a time' works would be in order.
Knowing what the other side
really wants doesn't imply
giving anything away at all
You are correct, it doesn't and I didn't mean to imply it did. What to
'give away' refers to your delusion in imagining the current 'demand',
whichever it is at the moment, is a 'root cause'.
Nope, that's a separate
issue, a "beef" and not
the root cause.
Fortunately, I'm not an
-- it's a correlary to the
ancient and sage advice of
"Know thine enemy."
Tis a shame you'll never get there.
expert and don't have to
-- I'm just an American
citizen who damned well
can tell when something
is working and when it
isn't.
Opinion noted.
You seem to be living under the illusion that Al Qaeda, and the rest,
think like you do and are motivated by the same kinds of consideration
but they have a distinct advantage in knowing 'the way', that it's
Allah's will, and, obviously, inevitable.
I know the fundamentalist
mindset in general,
It is blazingly clear you not only don't 'know' the 'fundamentalist
mindset' but have no clue at all.
I don't place much faithit is
imperative that those
making life and death
decisions know at least as
much as I do. They
apparently don't, and
that's a big contributor
to our current and ongoing
failure.
Well, there's no hope for Pelosi and Reid as they're too wrapped up in
their own political opportunism to give a tinker's dam about anything
else.
in polticians' motives
either, but at least
those two are working
the will of the people
in this case --
Dumber'nyuh, with his
twenty-something approval
rating on Iraq, is
marching to his own
delusional tune toward a
steep cliff, and nobody
in their right mind is
following him over the
edge.
Nope -- they've stated
In short, your estimation of their chances of succeeding is ignorant
non-believer hooey because it's already been written, and you lost.
It's just a matter of understanding which tactics Allah said to use
and Bin Laden's figured it out. Terrorize the great Satan and he'll
wither away, just like in Afghanistan.
Better yet, stymy The Great
Satan on Muslim lands and
bleed him to death -- that's
even better, the longer the
bloodletting the more and
better propaganda comes of
it. What we're doing now,
taking fire and casualities
with no chance of success,
is tailor-made for Al Qaeda.
What's tailor made for Al Qaeda is your plan to cut and run.
their preferences and
for once the statement
is competely credible.
Al Qaeda has nothing to
gain by us leaving Iraq
-- as you yourself
point out, most Iraqis,
Sunnis included, have
no use for them. Iraq
has value to As Qaeda
only as propaganda
demonstrating their case
that the U.S. wants to
dominate Muslim
populations by force and
must be opposed by any
means available -- if
the U.S. foresakes that
alleged ambition, that
contention is (at least
somewhat) discredited,
creating much-needed
doubt.
"Terrorize the Great Satan"
was tested and proven long
before Al Qaeda -- that die
was cast in Lebanon, under
the guns of the U.S.S. New
Jersey and the leadership
of Ronnie Ray-Gun. The
Marines were car-bombed,
Marines died, surviving
Marines left -- and the
current age of terrorism
began.
Some people learn from history and then there's you who want to repeat
it.
The die is cast, Flopsweat
-- to avoid repeating that
history you have to avoid
sending in troops and
oppose the fanatics via
other, more effective
means. How many times
does military force have
to fail before folks
realize that it's not
applicable -- at least
not in the form of
infantry and armored
formations -- to the
situation at hand? I
hope our kids and
grandkids don't have to
answer that question
because our generation
refused to!
Define "the necessary
Iow, you can't defeat peopleAfter all, they were so adamently intent
in committing that destruction that they even thought it was worth sacrificing their
own lives in the process.
You're so 'secular western'. Martyrdom for Allah is an honor and
pleasure, and only a non-believer could possibly imagine staying on
earth preferable to being with Allah.
like that with military
force
That does not follow any more than you can't beat Kamikaze Japan.
Japan's kamikazes were a
desperation measure, but
they were military and
under the control of a
nation-state -- and were
it not for Hirohito's
acquiescence, the bushido
ethos and nationalist
extremism behind them
would have made it
*extremely* difficult to
occupy and control the
home islands, regardless
of atomic weaponry.
Yep, it would have been more difficult, alright.
So, which is it? You'd have stayed and finished the necessary job or
cut and run on that one too, leaving it to fight all over again?
job" first -- if it
was the military
defeat of Japan, that
was well and truly
done before those
A-bombs fell. My
guess is the only
reason we even
considered invading
Japan was the Soviets
-- and scaring Uncle
Joe probably figured
at least as much in
Truman's decision as
obtaining a formal
surrender. Knowing
as little as Truman
did about the upshot
of nuclear explosions
and as rightfully
concerned about the
Soviets as he was, I
might have taken the
same decision given
that we'd already
slaughtered so many
Japanese innocents
from the air. That
said, I don't think
the wholesale bombing
of cities devoid of
military or industrial
sites is ever justified
-- and I don't think it
really shortened the
war in either theatre.
Aircrew heroics
notwithstanding, that's
not war, it's military
terrorism.
With today's stateless
fanatics, the situation
is quite different --
Of course it is. Which is why the "oh my, it's lasted longer than
WWII" is demagogic nonsense.
It's a legitimate
expectation, and more
than enough to demand
a change in strategic
direction regarding
terrorism -- there's
no evidence that the
presence of American
troops in Iraq is
doing a damned thing
about the threat we
actually face other
than erecting a giant
terrorist recruiting
poster and thereby
exacerbating the
problem.
nobody with a conscience
(Hirohito was a sumbitch,
but he cared about his
homeland and his people)
He just barely escaped a coup to keep the war going.
Yup, compared to Japan's
diehard militarists, he
was a humanitarian!
is there to tell them to
stand down, and no real
military equipment is
required for them to
persist -- the kamikazes
needed aircraft, a bomb
vest is far cheaper and
easier to obtain and
hide.
Yes, and yet, the casualties inflicted are miniscule in comparison.
It only takes one victim
to make one a murderer
-- and at least the
kamikazes attacked armed
ships that could defend
themselves! Terrorism
against civilians
(including the air
campaigns of Arthur
Harris and Curtis LeMay
in WWII) is of a
different ilk imo.
I didn't say give up, I say
-- they're happy to
die, our troops just want to
survive and go home.
You've made a case for your
opposition!
No, the "might as well give up and grow a beard" is your conclusion,
not mine
bring the troops home
That is give up.
No it isn't -- it's putting
away your hammer on a job
where there are no nails.
and
start fighting this struggle
with a viable plan --
including effective weapons
and tactics, military and
otherwise -- to prevail.
And just where are you going to confront the enemy where it'll be
'painless and quick' so you don't have to cut and run when soldiers
die in combat and you won't have to whine about it taking too long?
That's for experts to
decide -- and not just
infantry tacticians,
but cops, spooks, and
specialists in the
region and the cultures
therein. You know, the
sort of folks
Dumber'nyuh and Cheney
ignored and/or forced
out of their jobs.
Dream on.
What we're doing now is
clearly making our country
and the world less safe.
Exactly the opposite.
Islam is galaxies away
Qur?an 9:111 The Believers fight in Allah?s Cause, they slay and are
slain, kill and are killed.
Qur?an 9:44 Those who believe in Allah and the Last Day do not ask for
an exemption from fighting with your goods and persons. And Allah
knows well those who do their duty.
Qur?an 61:4 Surely Allah loves those who fight in His Cause.
So why would they have so much hatred against the
"righteous benevolent gracious super powerful" USA?
Because the U.S. is infidel, not following Sharia, and opposes the
righteous will of Allah that all mankind obey his word and laws.
If they weren't tyrannized
by U.S. puppets in their
own countries, this would
never even enter their
minds
Utter nonsense. It is integral and fundamental to their religious
interpretation.
Their religious interpretation
would have no support were it
not for the political
situation in the middle east
and southwest Asia.
And what was the 'political situation' when the Byzantine Empire fell?
Tell me how that was due to the U.S.
from the kind of unity
and military prowess
required to defeat the
Byzantines, so there is
no relevant parallel.
Islam is not the rootYou're
babbling on about it because
you don't know the root cause
of terrorism.
Positively stunning you can possibly imagine that Islam is a 'result'
of the U.S. in the 7'th century.
cause of terrorism.
Terrorism was not at
-- but because those
so-called "moderate"
governments suppress all
poltical opposition, the
only place for them to
turn is the mosque, and
the only mosques offering
a solution have radical
mullahs and sheiks who
advocate violence with a
scruptural rationale!
NO government devised by man can satisfy their beliefs.
You're missing the point
again -- "their beliefs"
would be laughably
irrelevant without the
root cause of terrorism
being blatantly extant
in those countries, and
the Wahhabists would be
pissing into the wind.
Like it was 'irrelevant' in the 7'th century, or the 10'th, 12'th, and
15'th.
issue at those times.
You're obsessing with
Islamic empire building,
which won't be relevant
unless we continue to
facilitate Bin Laden's
pie-in-the-sky ambitions
for decades or even
centuries to come. You
can't conquer anything
with terrorism -- you
can only kill and
frighten people into
reactions that serve
your ends.
Irrelevant, the root
And that is an
integral part of it.
Still missing the point --
the root cause, please!
Get it through your head, not every one is a HERETIC.
cause doesn't involve
religion at all.
How in the world did you EVER get the ridiculous notion that man'sI don't care about either
will could supercede god's?
"will,"
That is why you are CLUELESS.
*They* DO.
The root cause will tell
you why.
I don't care if a few
what interests me is
identifying and eliminating
the root cause, making any
such violence entirely
senseless and beside the
point, regardless of it's
religious underpinnings.
That is because, as a heretic, you view religion as some 'superfluous'
superstition and can't imagine anyone actually believing it.
fanatics believe in
terroristic holy wars
-- I want to deprive
them of their current
raison d'etre and
therefore their
recruits.
It's an elaborate
Just another example of the 1400 year long western plot to destroy
Islam.
Again, that's just an
adopted rationale and
neither a root cause nor
the specific beef behind
the 9/11 atrocities.
You're thinking 'western' and, in that context, I was originally
inclined to contemplate a similar notion, in the same sense as
'persecuted' Germans in Poland being viewed as a 'rationale' by Hitler
That's what they were,
because there was no such
persecution -- what Hitler
wanted from the Poles was
access to East Prussia and
the sea in preparation for
invading The Soviet Union,
which at the time everyone
considered a dire threat
to Europe. When the Poles
wouldn't cooperate, he made
a deal with the devil
(Stalin) and took what he
wanted anyway.
I am aware of that. It's the counter example.
distraction.
But you don't get 'the lingo' nor the philosophy of it. "Persecuted'
is explained in the Qur?an as anything non-Islam, as all truth and
happiness flows from Islam. You, however, think in terms of western
'liberalism' but the U.S. does not follow Sharia so, regardless of
what your infidel mind imagines is 'good', it's 'persecution', end of
story.
Entirely beside the point
No, it is PRECISELY the point.
-- deal with the root
cause and it all becomes
moot,
It is anything BUT moot if whatever you do isn't Islam.
Puh-leeze, you really don't
have to buy into Bin Laden's
delusion of formidability,
that's entirely optional!
If Islam is making any real
inroads into western
countries, it's by entirely
peaceful separatism under
Sharia -- terrorism is
utterly counterproductive
in that regard by making
those peaceful communities
suspects and subject to
police surveillance and
press scrutiny. I'm truly
more concerned about that
sort of quiet dilution of
western cultures than by
Al Qaeda, which can only
perpetrate criminal
violence.
True only to a point --
since Islam has a
long history of tolerance
of "infidels" even in the
midst of Muslims, let
alone in countries where
Muslims are a minority.
That's another myth. 'Tolerance' as long as the dhimmi accepts his
proper place as an inferior to the Muslim, just as a slave owner is
kind to a slave who knows his place.
Jews, for example, were
far better off in
Moorish Spain than
anywhere in Christian
Europe, subordination
to Muslims being far
preferable to
persecution and
torture at the hands of
Christians insisting
on conversion.
I'm not defending the
Caliphates in saying
the above -- I'm just
making a comparison.
Theocracy in any form
is anathemic to me
personally -- and in
this country that
threat is more dire
from nominal Christians
than from their Muslim
counterparts.
In the absence of the root
It's not a feint, well, except for them being quite willing for you to
believe whatever nonsense you like as long as it works to their
benefit, it's simply a 'truth' that anything not properly Islamic is a
persecution.
It doesn't matter what is
formally considered
"persecution" in their
scripture and/or according
to their mullahs -- in the
absence of the root cause
nobody would be willing to
kill or die over it.
You have just illustrated my point about why you'll never get it.
cause, there wouldn't be
enough recruits for the
fanatics to be effective.
Opinion of someone who
Blindingly obvious and self contained too. If it's not their vision ofAgain, the religious blather
Islam then it's persecution and anyone who disagrees is a non-believer
who, by definition, is unqualified to discuss it.
of fundy Muslims is moot
absent the root cause.
You have, again, illustrated my point about why you'll never get it.
doesn't know the root
cause noted.
People don't do such things
for no reason, right? It's not like it was some childhood prank or sports competition
or audition to be on "Survivor" was it? I'd like to hear your theory.
The farce of your questions shows I was correct about you being
disingenuous.
He's in no way disengenuous
LOL. Well, nice of you to throw a joke in.
As long as you're still
posting we'll always
have one of those.
No doubt
-- and you continue to be
elaborately evasive by
bringing in scriptural
rationales instead of
dealing with the questions
at hand!
Al Qaeda does not share your disdain for truth and God's will.
Once again, Al Qaeda is
irrelevant absent the root
cause.
Again, you're clueless.
Ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
At least consult a
thesaurus!
Inferiority complex noted.
And if you like,
provide your most practical humane solution afterwords.
Bin Laden, as well as many associates, have given you the answer:
Recognize Islam as the true and only way, submit, and follow Sharia.
Problem solved.
Even Bin Laden doesn't
expect
You really don't have any idea whatsoever about what Bin Laden
'expects'.
Perhaps, but I'm giving him
credit for a three-digit IQ.
No, what you want to 'give him credit' for is sharing your non-belief
in religion, which you then, as liberals love to do, declare that then
makes someone 'smart',
or demand this
of countries with
"infidel" majorities --
It's been stated in precisely those terms multiple times. You just
weren't listening.
You don't know the
difference between spewed
propaganda and actual,
attainable goals.
That's funny coming from you who was miffed as the difference between
Al Qaeda strategy documents vs propaganda broadcasts..
"Strategy documents" --
easily planted or
leaked, therefore no
more credible than the
Osama's greatest video
hits absent thorough
investigation.
Only for fundy fanatics
Even funnier with what you posted just below.
Answer me this. Just what would induce them to leave infidels alone?
The absence of blatant
"infidel" exploitation of
the people in Muslim
majority countries would
cut them off at the knees
-- got a clue as to the
root cause yet?
The mere existence of infidels is 'exploitation'.
-- their potential
recruits would just as
soon pursue their
personal lives in peace
absent the root cause.
Seriously. Why would you allow God's creation to be polluted by
infidels, especially when he said to get rid of them?
Oh, the remaining fanatics
By "remaining fanatics" you mean anyone dumb enough to still believe
in God or any religion, right?
Nope -- more evidence
of inferiority complex
noted with compassion.
Honestly, some of my
best friends believe
in the God of Abraham
-- some of them are
observant Christians
and Muslims, but none
are fundys.
would doubtless continue
to want to "get rid of
them," but they'd be
hopelessly hobbled in
actually accomplishing it.
Too bad the Byzantine Empire didn't know that.
Conquering empires requires
large, well-equipped armies
-- terrorism can only
accomplish occasional
murder and mayhem. The
west is in little danger
from violent Muslims -- but
watch out for the peaceful
fundys in your neighborhood,
they have an agenda that's
at least at bit more viable.
Do you have ANY idea of history?
Yes, too bad you don't.
Hitler needed the entire
he just wants those
countries to *** out
while he and his guys
try to accomplish it in
the Muslim world.
All he wants is the Sudetenland.
No, he wants the entire
Muslim world to dance to
the Wahhibist tune --
that ain't gonna happen
either.
He doesn't need 'the entire Muslim world' anymore than Hitler needed
'every German' or Stalin needed 'every Russian'.
German nation either
actively or tacitly
subordinate. He pretty
much got it. Stalin got
virtually every Russian
(and Ukrainian,
Belorussian, etc,) only
with Hitler's help --
they were ready to turn
on Stalin, but the SS's
murderous behavior
against civilians made
Uncle Joe seem tolerable
again and the "rodina"
worth defending.
Btw, just how 'pleased' with the U.S. do you think all the Muslims who
don't share his view of Islam will be if we hand them over to him?
How exactly would leaving
Iraq in the control of a
large Shiite majority hand
anyone over to an ultra-
radical Sunni leader?
Maybe the same way leaving a large Afghan majority alone handed them
over to foreign Taliban control. Just as one possible way.
Foreign origin is not
the issue -- sectarian
compatibility is. The
Arabs and other non-
Afghani ethnicies were
tolerable because (a)
they were Sunnis and
(b) they had already
fought beside Afghanis
against the Soviets.
In a Shiite majority
country, a radical
Sunni faction is non-
starter -- if Iraq
becomes radicalized,
it'll come from
Shiite Iran (as many
of their Ayatollahs
do), not from among
the Sunnis.
Exactly my point -- they
Do
you think even the most
fundamentalist of Iranian
ayatollahs "share his view
of Islam?"
Ironically, they pretty much share the 'same view' of different views,
which is why it's not uncommon to see them at each other's throats.
share an intolerant
fundy attitude, but
diverge on theology,
which effectively
prevents enough unity
within Islam for any
threat other than
terrorism to endanger
western countries. I
reiterate, Islam in the
form of peaceful
separatist communities
under Sharia in the
west are a more
credible threat to
western culture and
values than any violent
movement like Al Qaeda.
And, on that same note, why is it that people who, as a planned
strategy, wantonly murder innocents always seems to be who you want to
accommodate?
I don't want to accomodate
them,
That is always may favorite line from the left: declaring they don't
want to accommodate dictators in the same breath they explained how
they should be accommodated.
I never stated any such
thing -- to put it
briefly, I think we need
to pick our fighst more
intelligently and wisely,
not surrender to tyrants
or religious fanatics of
any stripe. We can be
neither naive idealists
nor avaricious economic
imperialists -- we have
to be both tough and
wily, accomodating and
confrontational as the
situation dictates.
I want to deprive
them of their raison d'etre
-- the root cause that
continues to elude you!
Above you repeated the popular mantra of "know thine enemy" but you
don't put the slightest effort into it and, instead, plow right along
presuming your personal opinion of religion and what constitutes 'good
government', and the rest, is shared by people who have explicitly
declared exactly the opposite.
I've made not such absurdly
naive assumption.
You have about as much
I will concede one possibility to your approach. If you can establish
a flawless, 'perfect', utopia, then you might have a chance. But
anything short of that leaves plenty of 'justification' for revolution
and the establishment of the *true* flawless, and 'perfect', Islam.
And, you better get that perfect utopia overnight because any delay is
justification as well because, let us all sing along "it isn't
working. a non-plan."
idea of my "approach"
as you do of the root
cause of terrorism.
I suggest you study up on the proper length to wear your beard.
Again, this is irrelevant
fear mongering -- radical
Muslim dominance of the
the western world is
simply not going to
happen regardless of
scriptural rationales or
radical rhetoric.
Oh it's quite possible.
In a pig's eye it is.
And you claimed to not have religious conviction.
I have no doubt the Byzantine Empire thought the same thing at one
time..
The Byzantines faced a
huge, well-equipped
Muslim army, not a
bunch of car bombers
and IED planters --
let's not make believe
terrorism isn't real,
but let's not
exaggerate what it can
accomplish either.
Especially if you hand over half the world to
fanatics who "love death" and view you as an abomination against God's
will.
That's essentially what
being done now in Iraq and
I want it to stop.
Gotta love how the left can be irrational and contradictory all in one
sentence.
Tip: "Leaving" is a handing over.
Yes -- but it's not handing
over to our actual
adversaries, who even you
admit are not a major
factor in the fate of Iraq
because they're resented
by pretty much all Iraqis.
It'll be to the extant
The only question is who you'll hand it over to when you leave.
Iraqi government whenever
we leave -- it might as
well be ASAP, because they
show no sign whatsoever of
getting any better at
governing than they are
now. One effective combat
batallion today, just like
this time last year and
the year before that --
they won't stand up and
fight to establish a
country until we stop
doing it for them, and
there'll never be enough
of our people over there
to finish that job
because we just don't
have 'em to spare.
The fact is, to pacify a
country of tens of
millions you need multiple
hundreds of thousands of
razor-sharp, counter-
insurgency trained troops.
We haven't got 'em to send
-- only more half-trained
reservists, homesick
Guardsman, and burnt-out
soldiers and marines on
their third and fourth
tours. Isn't working and
can't work -- country too
big and far too hostile
for success with less than
a million American boots
on the ground, a number
which ain't gonna happen.
What makes you think that these particular fundamentalists, who'sNo worries, I don't
whole ideology is recreating the ways of the 'original' believers, as
they interpret it, intend to behave any differently than those they
explicitly emulate? It's all written down, right to the last task.
Which, btw, includes telling you anything whatsoever as long as it
furthers the will of Allah.
believe them for a minute
I know you don't and that's your problem.
No problem at all absent
the root cause.
-- if we stop stoking the
fires
Don't upset Hitler. 'Peace in our time'.
I'm not advocating
appeasement in any way
or shape -- I advocate
intelligent opposition,
aerosol bug killer
instead of whacking the
hornet's nest with a
big military stick.
There ain't no Hitler
here, sonny -- no
Wehrmacht, not Luftwaffe,
no Kriegsmarine, just
fanatics willing do die
in order to scare people.
I reiterate, don't dismiss
the threat, but stop
exaggerating and
mischaracterizing it with
with ill-fitting historical
analogies.
Yup, and ill-advised --
and deal with the
root cause,
Treaty of Versailles was unfair.
that's why the next time
there was a Marshall Plan
instead, the reward being
a prosperous Europe with
West Germany as the rock
solid front line against
the Soviets instead of
spawning a rampaging
Hitler. We (actually the
French and British --
Wilson disagreed) gave
Hitler everything he
needed to grab power,
which doesn't excuse him
but certainly doesn't
vindicate us.
Islamic
fundamentalism will wane
He'll be happy with these concessions.
Whether he's happy or not
doesn't matter, as long as
he's defanged and harmless
-- or dead.
much as Christian
fundamentalism is already
waning in the absence of
a sufficiently compelling
raison d'etre. Iow, the
Wahhabist imams will still
preach, but nobody will be
queuing up to kill or die
for their medieval
interpretations.
Thank you for explaining how your entire theory is predicated on your
disdain for religion.
My disdain is reserved
for fundys -- religion
is a basic right that
has my full respect.
It's more a matter of
Christianity changed because it went though an 'enlightenment' that
Islam has not. And that's partly because Christianity has a different
underlying message and philosophy.
Islam being a far
younger tradition imo
-- and Christianity
has a number of
underlying messages
plus lots of stuff
inherited from the
Hebrew scriptures,
that's why Bishop
Spong and Franklin
Graham can both call
themselves Christians
despite agreeing on
pretty much nothing.
I agree with you that
Islam has to mature
and get over its
ambitions -- it's at
about the same spot
in its evolution as
Christianity was when
Spaniards and
Portuguese brought
Christ to the New
World on wings of
gunpowder and steel.
Fortunately, the west
is not comprised of
Incas or Aztecs and
Islam doesn't have the
technical advantages
required to prevail.
It
comprises a threat to
so-called "moderate"
regimes in the Muslim
world, but only because
those de facto puppet
governments tyrranize
their people with U.S.
suppprt.
Good thing there's 'liberal' Bin Laden to save them, eh? Instead of
being 'tyrannized' they can live in the harmony of barbers murdered
for giving bad haircuts and the 'freedom' to submit or die. And we
have a shining example of 'liberated' Muslims in what Bin Laden lauded
as the closest thing to (they weren't quite strict enough) a true
Islamic State, The Taliban.
What you don't seem to get
is that radical Islam is an
alternative nobody really
wants --
What you don't get is your belief system is not the only one, it's not
carved into stone tablets, and doesn't have the word of god behind it.
I get that completely
-- I don't even dream
of converting a fundy
to my way of looking
at the universe. That
said, I do insist on
peaceful coexistence
-- criminal behavior
is just that,
regardless of how it's
justified in a book
or by a clergyman, it
cannot be allowed or
excused.
Rather funny, actually. You are every bit the 'religious zealot' they
are but can't see theirs for yours.
I don't have an evangelistic
bone in my body, Flopsweat.
If you want to learn from me
you have to ask -- I don't
go door to door and I
certainly have no need for
agreement from anyone.
but our puppet
regimes don't permit any
other opposition on literal
pain of death, and the
mullahs can conintue to
agitate in the sanctuary of
their mosques. Moreover,
even the foremost of our pet
regimes already imposes a
Sharia even more severe than
Iran's variant!
Get off the drugs.
You don't think Saudi
Arabia still has almost
daily beheadings and
stonings as per Sharia?
Looks like is isn't me
on "the drugs!"
No problem with those folks having WMD, no sir'ee. I'm just not sure I
can handle that much happiness.
The WMD jig is up, Flopsweat
Oh? Did Iran finish already?
Iran is much less of threat
than loose nukes out of
Russia or Pakistan -- Iran
is under far too much
scrutiny to smuggle
anything out, not so the
other two up-and-running
source countries.
See, you tried to change
the subject and I returned
the favor -- it's only
polite!
-- tighten up the security
in Russia (where the bulk of
the world's surplus HEU is
apparently guarded by a
bunch of vodka-swilling
oafs)
Ah, the ever popular front line argument of the left: denigrate
whoever and, 'viola', point 'proved'.
I don't claim to have
proven anything -- but I
assume you've read the
same reports I have, no?
You plan on invading Russia? Because they not only claim they've got
it all under control but have said they don't want any help nor any
money for it either.
Then they're far more of
a problem than Iran or
North Korea will ever be.
and the only way to
produce WMD will be with
highly visible facilities
such as those Iran can't
manage to hide.
You mean they can't 'hide' the massive underground complexes hiding
what they're doing?
If they could, then we
wouldn't know about any
"massive underground
complexes," would we?
I think you're going to
That
boogie man just don't
scare no more.
I think that was a 1938 headline.
just plain wear old Adolf
out -- beating a dead
horse is bad enough, but
beating what's left of a
a monster who's been dead
for over sixty years is
just ludicrous. Maybe
you ought to cut down on
your History Channel DVD
viewing for while....
Please take as much time
as you like. This is not a set-up. These are not loaded questions. I just want to keep
an open mind and hear your theory if you really have one.
Suuuuuure you do.
He does
LOL
Good of you to end on a joke.
If it is a joke, it's
superfluous as long as
you're around! :-)
-- and we're
still waiting for an
answer that addresses
the questions at hand.
I for one won't be
holding my breath for
one from the likes of
you.
I already did, if you can read.
I read, you either evaded
or you don't know.
Confess -- which is it?
I confess, you don't know.
Thank you, confession
noted.
_____
I really can't put in this
kind of time anymore --
feel free to grab the last
word, I'll eventually get
around to reading it
(assuming you care).
.
- References:
- Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- From: Rich Koerner
- Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- From: Elvis Kabong
- Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- From: Elvis Kabong
- Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- From: Elvis Kabong
- Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- From: Bruce Morgen
- Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- From: Bruce Morgen
- Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- Prev by Date: Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- Next by Date: Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- Next by thread: Re: OT - There goes the southern ice cap.... (!!!!)
- Index(es):
