"Culture is a very complicated issue and reducing it to good versus evil is not helpful."

... and the moment you stop equating America with evil we'll be getting somewhere.

Now, if you wouldn't mind I'd like you to elaborate on this outlandish statement:

"U.S. foreign policy has created much of the terrorism in the world today, you can't blame [Ahmadinejad] for calling a spade a spade."

I don't think you have any justification in stating that I am "completely indiscriminate." I am not a relativist, nor have I hinted at relativity.  Culture is a very complicated issue and reducing it to good versus evil is not helpful.   

http://foi.missouri.edu/terrorbkgd/ushadkeyrole.html

Iraq and Afghanistan do not share borders. My haste in typing. I freely admit mistakes, because all people make them. Always question the motives of those unwilling to admit mistakes. Honesty is not their agenda.

I think we share: distrust of this administration; an appreciation of legacy American culture and a disdain for what seems to be replacing it (socialist/authoritarian); and unmeasurable sympathy for the soldiers in Iraq--especially those without body armor and insufficiently armored vehicles, ambiguous orders, and those who are prosecuted for simply doing their duty, like Colonel Chessani and the brave Marines under his command; disgust with how socialists and America haters have completely co-opted the educational system and are turning our next generation into nanny-state dependents; and a somewhat dim view of our future prospects, since:(1) None of the Democrats show any sign whatsoever of even having an inkling of a clue about anything that matters. Of the bunch (Barrack, Clinton, Edwards), John Edwards is the only one who will even answer a straight quewestion with a straight answer. He even had the fortitude to go on Bill Maher's show. Of the Republicans, only Ron Paul has a realistic domestic agenda, but a ruinous foreign policy; and Rudy will make the US a totalitarian State in his quest to 'protect' America, but knows the true enemy. I may be gloomier than you, but then again, I am a gloomy gus. We probably disagree with some details above.

You seem to be square behind Ron Paul. I really like everything he says and he appears to have enormous integrity but cannot agree with his estimation of why the US has been a target for Islamic terror--which is really why everyone has been the target for Islamic terror.

We disagree on how and when to judge. My answer to that is: by the standard of man's life qua man--and that goes for culture and all the rest; and constantly.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"I don't rank cultures very often. Usually, I am content to study their differences."

THAT is your problem, Disinterested - you're completely indiscriminate. To quote Rand: "To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it."

"U.S. foreign policy has created much of the terrorism in the world today, you can't blame the guy for calling a spade a spade."

THAT is what I want you to explain.

We should have this out on another thread.  I'm not sure when I'll get to it, but it will be a fun topic. 

1.  I appreciate your answer.  Bush had me convinced once he got Powell to back the mission.  Obviously my opinion on Iraq has changed.  They told us they had secret information.  They told us various other things that turned out to be false or uncorroborated.  You know the story.  Of course the troops should be supported, but if you make a mistake you shouldn't make them pay for it any more than is necessary.  Did you know that Ron Paul has received more money from troops than any other GOP candidate.  Can you imagine being a soldier in Iraq, realizing it is a mistake, and then having to do your duty?  Stress beyond my comprehension. 

I know you are a smart guy, so I won't hold you responsible to stating that Iraq shares a border with Afghanistan.  I'm sure it was a mistake in writing and not in geographic knowledge.  You might want to edit your post to explain what you really meant.  Did you mean neighborhood?  I'm not sure Saddam would have been able to do much considering the constraints he was under.  If we could have kept our troops in Afghanistan we would probably be doing better there today.  You are right though, spilt milk. 

2.  People learn quickly when they are interested.  Nothing is more interesting for the poor and enslaved than how to attain wealth and freedom.  I think the ideals of capitalism and freedom are much easier to teach to the poor and uneducated than to our fellow westerners.  Most westerners are authoritarian socialists, we should know better.  If you are right (and you might be) we are screwed.  Our schools are not teaching the ideals of freedom and capitalism so much as the social justice that can be provided by nanny governments.  That is obviously a different thread. 

3.  I don't rank cultures very often. Usually, I am content to study their differences.  I understand my own culture pretty well and am sure it can improve.  A greater emphasis on education would be a nice start.  I am partial to Texas culture although much of it is annoying.  When I leave the U.S. I am partial to U.S. culture.  Honesty, hardwork, timeliness, value of freedom, and the acceptance of various views put together give us a huge advantage over the Muslim world. 

I don't understand what you want.  Could you be more specific?

1. I supported the war when we went in because I believed the President that that was an imminent threat and a link with al Quaeda. After I discovered that was baloney, I was mad. But our troops were there, and I refused to allow Vietnam in my adult lifetime. Knowing what we know now, and how much it cost us, I would not have authorized going into Iraq. I would have used the money to stablize Afghanistan. It may be that those efforts would have been pointless with Hussein on its border, doing everything he could to piss on any US effort. This is hindsight. In time4s of war, I support our troops. I cannot say removing a bastard like Hussein was a mistake. I still see the possibility that the President purposely fabricated the case for war in Iraq.

2. "Western concepts are easily shared and adopted. My conclusions are based on reality, reason, and an indepth historical understanding of the world. You already knew that."

I knew no such thing. Western concepts must be taught and expereinced to be shared--not reviled and fought. How well have "Dutch" Muslims integrated? In fact, you can cheer about Coca-Cola all you want. Coca-cola 'aint America, freedom, individuality. Islam is the antithesis of those, but IS compatible with Coca-cola. I do not agree that you are applying correct reasoning, a thorough understanding of reality and history in your dis-integrated view of things.

3. "As for multiculturalism, it is very healthy to appreciate other cultures, their strengths and weaknesses. Blindly accepting that your culture is vastly superior to all others in all ways is irrational. You are focused on the wrong evils. Multiculturalism and Islam are red herrings. They would both be solved (if multiculturalism is truly a problem) if we provided the right example."

How do you judge the superiority of a culture? Seriously, that will solve this issue.

If multiculturalism and Islam are red herrings, then tell me what the real issue is, and provide some support.

And yes, I have read Leviticus. Maybe you should re-read it and then read the Koran and see if you can spot the differences.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

could you, once and for all, expand on your theory of why the West is its own worst enemy... I'm getting sick of your half-arsed answers!

we been showing the Islamofilth the 'right example' ever since the freakin' enlightenment!! Where did that get us? 9-fucking-11...!!!!! 

1. It was working really well until the 1940s.

2. The enlightenment worked a little better on religion than it does on socialism.  We need a second enlightenment to defeat this latest irrational ideology. 

But Scott: Western Civilisation is ending, truly, and you are the cause. 

Thanks for the vote of confidence.

I just can't believe Scott the Deluded's second to last post to this thread, but have decided to leave it until the New Year as I don't want to be that pissed off going into Christmas as I would become composing a reply to it.

But Scott: Western Civilisation is ending, truly, and you are the cause. 

Disin: "You are focused on the wrong evils. Multiculturalism and Islam are red herrings. They would both be solved (if multiculturalism is truly a problem) if we provided the right example. "

Keep up with the state of play, Scott... we been showing the Islamofilth the 'right example' ever since the freakin' enlightenment!! Where did that get us? 9-fucking-11...!!!!!

Mabey if you kicked out the Muslims, they would go home and make their countries separate church and state. 

I wrongly assumed that you supported the war in Iraq.

The main problem with your position is that it is not integrated, and you pull your conclusions out of some Platonic ether. And, like a true multiculturalist, you are again ascribing WESTERN concepts and attributes upon people who are not Westerners.

Western concepts are easily shared and adopted.  My conclusions are based on reality, reason, and an indepth historical understanding of the world.  You already knew that. 

As for multiculturalism, it is very healthy to appreciate other cultures, their strengths and weaknesses.  Blindly accepting that your culture is vastly superior to all others in all ways is irrational. You are focused on the wrong evils.  Multiculturalism and Islam are red herrings.  They would both be solved (if multiculturalism is truly a problem) if we provided the right example. 

Have you read Leviticus? 

"Tenuous connections? Overthrowing a government has a profound effect."

Yes. So show how it increased Islamic jihadism and terror when prior events show a history full of terror attacks.

"But anyway, when you tell me that Islam is intractable, invincible as an ideology, I keep on thinking of Christianity. It was just as evil a religion what with the justified ritual killings and all. Yet, Christianity is dying all over the first world. Perhaps it's just luck. "

I do not think you are paying attention. Christanity is a choice. There is no punishment for leaving it. Misguided Christians, 200 years ago, and with no scientific guidance as to what an epileptic seizure is, and with no source of other information or scientific knowledge, mistakenly burnt witches. Burning witches is not an edict required directly by the Bible. It was terrible action by primitives. Contrast this with Islam. The Koran DEMANDS the torture and murder of those who leave Islam. The Koran SPECIFICALLY REQUIRES Jihad against non-believers. There is no issue of 'strength' of ideology. Islam as an ideology is false and weak--it cannot withstand the light of day. So, the mullahs make sure that the young are permitted no light of day. Like all evil, it can only exist when good people allow it to. It spreads because we in the West are afraid to identify the problem, and deal with it, harshly and directly. CHRISTIANITY IS NOTHING AT ALL LIKE ISLAM. The Harry Potter books have violence in them in the course of stories, as does the Bible. But the Koran ORDERS that acts of violence, torture and murder occur.

"We don't disagree on much really, except the solution. You want to drop bombs on people's houses so that they know who's side they are on. I'd rather let them fight amongst themselves. If you've studied much history of the middle east you'd know what a stretch it is for Iran to be funding Hamas. "

Do not put words in my mouth, and I will afford you the same courtesy. The more you write, the more I am certain that there are volumes and volumes that we disagree upon. This paragraph requires no further response.

""If we don't fight them there, they will fight us here!"

No, they will blow eachother up until they all get tired of the lunacy. If "Islamofacists" take over and attempt to hurt us, I'm sure we can deal with them. If they try that Theo Van Gogh thing again, even Europeans wont stand for it. If it happened in Texas once, there would be a pogrom. "

According to YOUR premise--that American foreign policy is the culprit for Islamic terrorism--then why wouldn't they fight us here, there, everywhere? History shows that Muslims DO NOT get tired of the "enemy of God" du jour because there are always new enemies, and alweays new, young men growing older and learning to use more and more modern and dangerous tools as the hand of Allah. They have been fighting themselves adn others for centuries. Is it because Middle Eastern people are inherently violent? Ridiculous. It is because of IDEAS--namely, the idea of Jihad as religious duty.

And let me ask you--why should we allow environments to develop domestically--or to continue, in any Western country, where Van Gogh's can be murdered with bold impunity? Why would we appease a known-violent and known-evil (anti freedom, anti-man) culture to be maintained in our Western countries?

What's wrong with: if you want to come to America, then you must become an American? No devout Muslims allowed. No new mosques. No transfer of wealth back to the Middle East. Period.

"The main flaw in your premise is that deep down most people are not actually religious."

The main problem with your position is that it is not integrated, and you pull your conclusions out of some Platonic ether. And, like a true multiculturalist, you are again ascribing WESTERN concepts and attributes upon people who are not Westerners.

"Not even if they are raised from childhood in schools that indoctrinate religious hatred are people likely to sacrifice themselves. The ego screams for sanity. If an indoctrinated Muslim is given the choice between martyrdumb and freedom/hardwork/prosperity, 9 out of 10 will go with cokacola."

You are dead, dead wrong. Read Animal Farm for the short course, and note what Napoleon does with the puppies, and what ensues when those puppies grow up. Even some stupid Americans went to Afghanistan to be part of the big happy Muslim family. Less than 1 in 10 Germans were members of the Nazi party when Hitler came into power. How'd that work out? What matters is--what is that one person willing to do to make sure the others toe the line? When he is willing to kill or die, the other 9 toe the line. Maybe one escapes and moves to America. But where are they gonna go if there is no more America? (Probably Canada).

"Besides the fact that the strategy of kill them all is really dangerous, nobody in power has the strength to fullfill the mission. The current war on terrorism is at best a halfcocked effort and at worst complete lunacy. And that's ignoring the fact that the main reason we are at war with terror is because it is so profitable to the corporations that run this country. If they enemy is truly going to take over the world as you predict, it would be easier to fight them off if the U.S. wasn't bankrupt. "

I am as sure as you that as many corporate Bush parasites imaginable are enriching themselves with taxpayer's money as much as possible. But all of this espionage and conspiracy theory stuff is junk. Islam is the problem. Islam must be neutered, domestically and abroad. It is not an issue of strength, it is an issue of clearly identifying the problem, and efficiently implementing a solution.

Why the different treatment of Islam? Because Islam has amply demonstrated its violent nature and attempts to subvert the West--in its terror attacks, in its recruiting of Americans, in its attempt on Fort Dix here in the States. And they have out and out told us they want to destroy us.

Here's the most important reason, and it is why the following analogy works: Islam is a POLITICAL MOVEMENT as well as a religion.

So let's take the sensitive issue of religion out of the equation. Let's say that it is 1945, and some Germans who happen to be Nazis and happen to be SS officer and soldiers want to emigrate the the US. They openly state that their goal is to spread Nazism in the US and overthrow the US government. Do we open the door, let them in, let them enjoy the American freedom of assembly, set up Nazi assembly halls, send support back to Germany to Hitler in his war against Europe? Do we let them beat up and kill Jews in their neighborhood?

It sounds crazy, but this is exactly what the West is allowing Muslims to do. They come in, set up their private meeting areas (mosques), preach hatred and destruction of non-Muslims, preach torture and murder, insist on setting up their own rules in government, demand accomodations from the government to implement their Islamic rules (in France, there was a story about a French public school in a predominantly Muslim area. Older school boys patrolled the hallways and were allowed by the French government to carry sticks and beat students who did not dress or act appropriately, per Shariah).

Westerners have the concept of separation of Church and State so ingrained in their minds that they forget that Islam makes no such distinction. Separate the political movement and viokent edicts from Islam and there would be no problem. Islam is BOTH Church and State. If Muslims practiced their 5 prayer a day, dress in a head to toe potato sack madness, STOPPED READING FROM A BOOK WITH A BUNCH OF RULES ABOUT HOW, WHY AND WHEN TO TORTURE AND KILL OTHERS, but Muslims otherwise integrated into society and agreed with and followed American law--like Jews and Christians and Hindus and Jains and Buddhists do--then there would be some equivalence. Islam is a political movement and a religion.

The burden should be upon the mosque to demonstrate that it does not teach violence, preaches against violence (against Non-Muslims, too), that world domination by the sword is not taught, in essence, that it is no longer true Islam, then it should be allowed to exist. Otherwise, it should not be allowed. Muslims should be allowed to leave to some other foolish country of their choice, or they can be deported.

I do not propose dropping bombs. I advocate eliminating all dealings with Muslims, staying away from all Muslim theocracies, accepting no Muslim immigrants, and particularly, no immigrants from Muslim theocracies. I advocate harsh anti-Islam policies in the US, because Islam is a political ideology which advocates the overthrow of the US government and the subjugation of its peoples. I advocate use of any use of force against aggressive Muslim theocracies. Very, very simple. Also, very, very rational and perfectly just.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Tenuous connections?  Overthrowing a government has a profound effect. 

But anyway, when you tell me that Islam is intractable, invincible as an ideology, I keep on thinking of Christianity.  It was just as evil a religion what with the justified ritual killings and all.  Yet, Christianity is dying all over the first world.  Perhaps it's just luck. 

We don't disagree on much really, except the solution.  You want to drop bombs on people's houses so that they know who's side they are on.  I'd rather let them fight amongst themselves.  If you've studied much history of the middle east you'd know what a stretch it is for Iran to be funding Hamas. 

"If we don't fight them there, they will fight us here!"

No, they will blow eachother up until they all get tired of the lunacy.  If "Islamofacists" take over and attempt to hurt us, I'm sure we can deal with them.  If they try that Theo Van Gogh thing again, even Europeans wont stand for it.  If it happened in Texas once, there would be a pogrom. 

Exactly how is Iran going to get a nuclear bomb (that they don't have) over here?  Rowboat?  If they did, who would we blame and who would get nuked off the planet?  Persians are boisterous of nature, they aren't about to initiate a fight with us.  Instead of picking on a country that has taken the brunt of many U.S. foreign policy mistakes and called us dirty names in return, perhaps we should focus on the real danger in this war on terroism: Saudi Arabia.

The main flaw in your premise is that deep down most people are not actually religious.  Not even if they are raised from childhood in schools that indoctrinate religious hatred are people likely to sacrifice themselves.  The ego screams for sanity.  If an indoctrinated Muslim is given the choice between martyrdumb and freedom/hardwork/prosperity, 9 out of 10 will go with cokacola.  Unless the only choice is martyrdumb, then the average goes a little higher.  But hey, 1 out of ten is way too high and we should hunt those guys down and put them away.  Islam is irrational, it is doomed to fade away.  The only way to keep it alive is to declare war on it. 

Besides the fact that the strategy of kill them all is really dangerous, nobody in power has the strength to fullfill the mission.  The current war on terrorism is at best a halfcocked effort and at worst complete lunacy.  And that's ignoring the fact that the main reason we are at war with terror is because it is so profitable to the corporations that run this country.  If they enemy is truly going to take over the world as you predict, it would be easier to fight them off if the U.S. wasn't bankrupt. 

It is not that the US has had foreign policy actions which had bad outcomes. That WILL happen from time to time. It's the notion that you (Scott the other) try to find some tenuous connection between some American foreign policy action, and then link it in utterly improbable and remote way to provide an excuse to blame the US instead of blaming those responsible for their terrorist, suicidal, murderous actions. Islam is turning out murderous robots, but it is US foreign policy that is to blame for terrorism?

Do you (Scott the other) blame a rape victim for dressing too sexy, too?

Do you ~really~ think that training Osama bin Laden to fight Russians in the 1980's is the ~reason~ or ~cause~ of anti-American hatred and terrorism?

Do you think that the notion of a suicide bomber began with Osama bin Laden?

Do you think that young men being taught in madrassas that America is the Great Satan have your capacity to reason and have had your training in logical thought? No, of course they haven't, and that is precisely why their training in Islam is EXACTLY the reason they are blowing themselves up. IDEAS move men and the world. And in their civilization, there is no room for studying anything but the Koran for answers. And there is no advice but the advice of the mullahs, who parrot irrational garbage generation to generation, that is sold as truth. When you have no means to judge truth and falsehood, and are executed if you question your faith (yes, the Koran says you must murder converts from Islam--not send to bed without supper, not whip or beat up--MURDER, as a direct order from Muhammad himself), then the answers you are given are not questioned.

No Muslims are taught "live and let live" by their religion or culture, as we in the West are. They are taught that all (that includes you) must submit to Allah; that those who do not submit must be converted, humiliated daily and forced to pay jizyah until they convert, and if they will not convert, to be killed. ALL MUSLIMS are REQUIRED to participate in Jihad. It is not optional, and it is a central tenet of Islam. Those who cannot fight MUST support Jihadists. Those who are risk if they openly support Jihadists must secretly support them, and are encouraged to lie to non-Muslims about what they believe UNTIL THEY ARE NUMEROUS AND STRONG ENOUGH TO WAGE OPEN JIHAD.

None of this is theory. None of this is fringe teaching from a lunatic mullah. This is contained in the Koran, and is stated over, and over. Not as parables, but as DIRECTIONS from Muhammad. RULES, REQUIREMENTS for Muslims in order to please Allah. There are some excellent books on the Koran. Beware of books written by supporters of organizations such as CAIR. Their intent is to deceive. AN easy read, but an illuminating one, is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam" by Robert Spenser. Until you understand what is ORDERED in the Koran (not statements via parable, COMMANDMENTS which all Muslims are ordered to follow), you can never understand our enemy.

In this context, when all of your liberal, moderate Muslims tend to keep quiet when a school teacher is being threatened with death for naming a teddybear Muhammad, when a rape victim is flogged for being raped, and her rapists walk free, when thousands die in an unprovoked attack--note the silence from these moderate, liberal Muslims, these integrated Westerners who practice some benevolent form of Islam evidently ignoring its central tenets and divinely-mandated directive, and note the joyful dancing in the streets of every televised Muslim in every country where they hold control. Those in the West are aiding terrorists organizations with money and intel, and keeping their heads down until they think they are strong enough to do what they do openly, and by then, it will be too late, because multiculturalists like you keep believing that THEY are not responsible, it is American foreign policy which requires them to behead Christians or blow up coffeehouses. Foolish American, you have fallen right into their trap. They have you.

Mr. and Mrs. DeSalvo did not raise a dummy. These fictitious moderate liberal Muslims can have my acknowlegement of their existence when they do a single goddamned thing to show they support Western civilization. In WWII, even though the US put Japanese Americans in concentration camps, seized their property and business (and in most cases never gave it back, selling the properties to whites), when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, Japanese Americans stood up and VOLUNTEERED to go fight, and ended up comprising the bravest, most decorated units in all of WWII. Though less decorated, a hellofa lot of Italian Americans and German Americans signed up and fought, too. THAT IS CALLED STANDING UP FOR YOUR NEW COUNTRY, YOUR NEW CULTURE. Not putting your head down and obeying the Islamic edict to not fight or criticize other Muslims. Other only thing I have seen of moderate liberal "Westernized" Muslims is that several have been prosecuted for funneling charitable money thru their Mosques in the US to terrorist groups in the Middle East. And avoiding any statement or criticism regarding the utterly fucked things their Muslim compatriots do to innocent people the world over. As they spread their anti-freedom rules and behaviors in this freest nation on Earth.

Is this a joke? Never in America? Just read what is happening in the Netherlands and in the rest of Europe, France, Germany. Muslims emigrated, set up insular communities, and have destroyed the native cultures to the point that these countries have been reduced from free nations to carbon copies of the Muslims religious dictatorships they emigrated from. Young girls are required to cover themselves from head to toe--in a French school, in France, in a government-funded school.

Moderate, liberal Muslim? That's like saying "moderate, liberal Nazi"--the terms are mutually exclusive. Either one is a devout Muslim or one is not. And if one is devout, one is REQUIRED BY THE KORAN TO ALWAYS SIDE WITH MUSLIMS AGAINST NON-MUSLIMS, REGARDLESS OF THE EQUITIES. So, for example, if a Muslim is on trial for the murder of a non-Muslim, and Muslims on the jury are required by their religion to acquit, regardless of facts or guilt. They must vote for Muslim political candidates. Can you see the problem here? No? Is it still American foreign policy that's the problem?

There are no shortage of books by people, mainly women, who have escaped Islam and know its true nature. And its true threat. Read some of their books.

In an error that many multiculturalists make, they assume that other cultures are as forgiving and accepting, as rational and fair as ours. Muslims are good neighbors, good friends, and if I lived in a Muslim country, they'd let me practice my religion, right? Not a chance. Let me assure you, Scott the other, as a member of Western civilization, the very things described above that you take for granted as de facto part of every culture are the very things which make Western civilization superior to Muslim "civilization," if it can be called that. Your culture IS superior to all others--if human life, prosperity and happiness is any standard at all. All others are built on superstition, slavery, murder, and irrationality. Ours may suffer foreign policy mistakes from time to time. But every other culture is fucked from the beginning, by design. Ours was built from the ground up by geniuses who loved man, life and our potential as a species. Some of them believed in God but understood the place of religion when they emphatically made it a private matter, and separated Church from State. Superior in every way that counts, Western civilization is responsible for every worthwhile modern invention, advancement, innovation in science, math, the arts, medicine, you name it.

When you say that you understand that not all cultures are equal, that is good, but you are only half way home, in my book. Saying what you say still leaves the door open for some other culture based on something other than reason, justice, equality before the law, and the rule of law to be deemed superior. Or even as good as ours. And it is not so. Maybe that makes you 50% a multiculturalist, but it definitely makes you 100% wrong.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Scott-
I agree that a lot of US foreign policy has been foolish and counterproductive - but that does not relieve blame from terrorists when they act. And of your comments:

"If we hadn't given Saddam chemical weapons. He would not have been able to gas the Kurds or the Iranians."

The US did side with SH in the Iraq-Iran war, supplied aid, and turned a blind eye to Saddam's use of chemical weapons in the 1980s, only choosing to later make political hay of it to rally support for Desert Storm and Iraq War 2.0. However, I am not aware of any evidence that the US actually supplied Saddam with said weapons. Can you support that claim?

Yes, but you are arguing that if we could only understand the roots of Islamic terrorism, and link that to American foreign policy, then we can reason with the Moslem world.

We can't. It's not a religion that an appeal to reason can possibly reach.

You think you can show them enlightenment through the benefits of freedom.

They're slaves and enslaved and are not only not interested in freedom, they're scared of it, as it would displease Allah, the Cruel and Merciless.

I'm not arguing that Islam is not a barbaric philosophy. 

Scott (the deluded, on this issue, not Scott the Sane).

If this, if that, if whatever ... vis a vis American foreign policy.

No! Just one 'if'. If not for the thugs in suicide suits following the fucked up barbaric philosophy that is Islam.

That's my intellectual offering to the thread, but I do find this issue that simple.

I have to admit I did learn a few things, but mainly it was a refresher.  I am fairly well educated on the issue, but appreciate any objective or enlightening material you can provide.  There  is your answer.  How about mine?

It appears that the author agrees with me on how to fight Islamic terrorism. Am I wrong on this?  Do you disagree with the author's conclusion?

You asked for one example of how our foreign policy has encouraged terrorism.  Obviously training Osama is a relevant example.  If we hadn't trained him, 9/11 might not have happened.

If we hadn't replaced Mossadegh with the Shah, Islamic extremists might not have taken over Iran. 

If we hadn't given Saddam chemical weapons.  He would not have been able to gas the Kurds or the Iranians.  Giving Saddam chemical weapons, is aiding and abiding.  Paying for his war against Iran was a bad idea and encouraged even greater Iranian hatred.  You know this war did a lot for the the idea of blowing yourself up. 

If we hadn't installed Israel through the U.N., the Palestinians probably wouldn't be blowing themselves up in order to kill Jews.  First, we allow Hitler to exterminate 6 million Jews, then we send them to live in a hornet's nest.  Why not give them Prussia instead? 

The point is not who is a fault, but why we are being attacked.  If the people in charge of my country are completely ignorant of the reality of the situation, they can't fix it.  As far as my personal interest goes: they are at fault for my being in increased danger.  I know Islamic terrorists are dangerous.  They are rabid human beings that should be rounded up and prosecuted, then jailed forever.  I would prefer that there were fewer Islamic terrorists so I don't think we should be forgetting our policies that have helped them justify their movement.  You might think that all they need to recruit new terrorists is to read them some verses from the Koran.  Perhaps for some.  But I don't think it hurts when you tie a person's personal tragedy to the actions of the "Great Satan".  Despite the fact that we export war and insecurity, many people throughout the world, including the Muslim world, see the U.S. as a place of hope and dreams come true.  The message of freedom and prosperity is a powerful one.  In fact, it is our only effective weapon against Islamic terrorism.  If we fail to protect freedom and prosperity here at home by ending free speech and habeas corpus, while bankrupting the nation through criminal over spending, we will have no defense against them.

"Make me a Muslim"? ~REALLY?~ Or is this a put-on?

This is just a guess, but first, you'd need a lobotomy.

I hate and despise how the Iranian crackpot parrots stupid lefty rhetoric, and like the good lefties they are, the media, celebrities, and readers of Newsweek swoon at his genius insight. Evil, evil, evil.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

"we trained and funded Osama and his ilk to fight the Soviets."

I'm pretty sure Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's parents bought they their first rifles and taught him to shoot. That mean that they are forever after responsible for everything they did with a gun? Not in my book.

"If not a tool of the weak vs. the powerful, what do you think terrorism is?"

Um, how about "the murder of innocents by cowards"?

"I suppose you could also call government aggression towards its citizens terrorism ie Hitler, Stalin, etc."

I wouldn't. Murder, oppression, do fine without muddying the terrorism waters.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Mullah to the gay wannabe convert:"Allah made Adam and Eve - he did not make Adam and Steve."

The question, Scott, is whether that essay gave you have a better, clearer perspective on why Islam wants to bring down the west?

You're welcome Scott DeSalvo (seems to be 2 Scott's on this thread).

""I think you HAVE to read it, if only to know your enemy and their tricks."

I agree Scott, I was bit heavy-hearted that day and I do not get what the hell Newsweek was thinking. Just what will Newsweek not publish? Anyway I have heard it all before - he did speak at my alma mater a few months ago.

"Yep, he's right. Once they have us all subverted to Islam."

Dhimmi's abound in Britain: This is a UK Channel 4 reality show for Islam called "Make Me a Muslim"- watch it.

make me a muslim 1

make me a muslim 2

make me a muslim 3

Thank you for your comments

UPDATE: Make Me a Muslim has been taken off line. I will repost if they
become available again.

You agree with Lewis's analysis but you disagree with the conclusion?

we trained and funded Osama and his ilk to fight the Soviets.

If not a tool of the weak vs. the powerful, what do you think terrorism is?

I suppose you could also call government aggression towards its citizens terrorism ie Hitler, Stalin, etc. 

"U.S. foreign policy has created much of the terrorism in the world today, you can't blame the guy for calling a spade a spade."

Okay... *counting to ten - deep breath*... Scott, have you read Bernard Lewis' "Roots of Muslim Rage"? If not, please have a read and have another think about your statement.

> Thanks for the heads-up, Liz.

...just your typical, anti-American, unsupported assertions as to how "American foreign policy" has somehow lead to 9/11. 9/11 is America's fault because of some American-backed junta in Chile in the 1950's? Huh?

Terrorism is the tool of the powerless over the powerful? Huh?

That whole article reads like a steaming pile of non-integrated crap. It's got every closet-Socialist criticism ever spewed in there, but no real demonstration of exactly what foreign policy action causes Islamic terror. Or even a specific instance of terrorism.

If you want to talk about "fault"--the only fault that matters is the fault of the murderer. You are too eager to blame a country that has done overwhelming good in the world--more good than any other nation in history, and probably more good for the world and its passengers than all other nations summed.

Moral blame falls upon the shoulders of the criminal actor. NOT the victim. This is applicable in two instances from the article you cite. First, governments who were provided support by he US DID and DO disappear people. Just like governments before and since have and do. That does not make those actions attributable to the US. And in the context of 9/11--how dare you blame that on America or Americans? And you do, you just cannot point to what the US did to cause it.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

This pretty much sums things up.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20011015/johnson

I don't like Akmadenadimwit much either, but I consider him at least partly our fault.

"They are presenting an argument that will play well with moderates the world over."

Appeasing multiculturalist/islamofacists, yes. Moderates? Moderate Muslims maybe. This leader is right up there with Putin in the slimy scumbag category. I am sure it was ghost written, but this guy is a lunatic. Consider the source.

"U.S. foreign policy has created much of the terrorism in the world today, you can't blame the guy for calling a spade a spade."

So 9/11 is justified by American foreign policy? What other acts of terror are justified by American foreign policy? And what specific American foreign policy has created "much" of this terrorism? Be specific.

"Iran knows that the tide has turned against war and they are trying to capitalize on the finding that they aren't really trying to build nuclear weapons"

So you believe that one of the most oil rich countries in the world, which can pump fuel out of the ground, needs to create nuclear refining facilities that, by the way, also create materials necessary for nuclear weapons, in a country whose leader has avowed to murder all Jews, and wipe Israel off the map? And has the same feelings about the USA?

What will you say when a nuke is detonated in NYC or over Israel? Oops, I guess I shouldA seen the signs--OR TAKEN THIS LUNATIC AT HIS WORD?

THIS IS A BAD, BAD MAN FOLLOWING A BAD, BAD RELIGION OF LIES, TORTURE AND DEATH.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

I'm not going to endorse the editorial as being completely accurate nor unbiased.  Actually, I doubt seriously that he wrote it.  Iran doesn't want a war with the U.S., they know they would lose.  They are presenting an argument that will play well with moderates the world over.  U.S. foreign policy has created much of the terrorism in the world today, you can't blame the guy for calling a spade a spade.  Iran knows that the tide has turned against war and they are trying to capitalize on the finding that they aren't really trying to build nuclear weapons. 

So slick that it dribbles too much oil and leaves a clear puddle of verbal diarrhoea.

That's a joke right? Scott?

I've never heard the guy so cogent.  A very well written editorial and indictment of U.S. foreign policy. 

I think you HAVE to read it, if only to know your enemy and their tricks.

"Global, sustainable peace and security will be realized only through the establishment of true justice and brotherhood. How can we expect to reach sustainable peace and security by humiliating others and acting in ways that depart from ethical and spiritual values?"

Yep, he's right. Once they have us all subverted to Islam. Oh, wait. They kill each other, too. So even that is out the window...

This guy is a lunatic.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!