Attn Alva: Delusions on Jihad

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Marlin T, Aug 1, 2008.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,878
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Pakistan and Delusions about Negotiating on Jihad

    By Jeffrey Imm


    Would America find it a shocking news revelation if a white supremacist organization had members supporting Ku Klux Klan terrorism? Would the FBI go to white supremacist political groups to fight the Ku Klux Klan, or seek white supremacist leaders to convince KKK members to change their thinking? But when it comes to the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, the Taliban, and Jihadist organizations around the world, this type of nonsensical thinking has become a common argument among many international relations circles, including American government leadership, because nearly 8 years after 9/11, such leadership continues to refuse to clearly define the enemy threat and ideology.
    The American media and government seem to think it is major news that members of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's intelligence organization (ISI) have reportedly been supporting the Taliban and Jihadist activities. They are surprised that a nation, where polls consistently show that 75 percent support the implementation of "strict Sharia law," would have individuals that support a group such as the Taliban whose goal is to enforce Sharia law and work towards restoring a caliphate. They are surprised that a nation whose government officials call for making "blasphemy" an international crime punished by death would have individuals that support attacks in other countries. Where do they think members of the Pakistan Taliban come from? What ideology do they think inspires the Taliban?
    Responding to new that CIA sources and other reports claimed links between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's ISI and the Taliban, Pakistan's Prime Minister Gilani stated that he was "pretty sure" that the ISI contained no pockets of Taliban sympathy. When further reports by the International Herald Tribune and the Wall Street Journal alleged links between the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's ISI to the bombing of the Indian embassy in Afghanistan, an Islamic Republic of Pakistan government spokeswoman Sherry Rehman stated: "There are probably still individuals within the ISI who are ideologically sympathetic to the Taleban and act on their own in ways that are not in convergence with the policies and interests of the government of Pakistan."
    What policies and interests are they not acting in convergence with? Enforcement of Sharia?
    This week, while President Bush has been praising the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as "a strong ally and a vibrant democracy," the Islamic Republic of Pakistan's federal government has been meeting with the Pakistan Northwest Frontier Province (NWFP) government on plans to implement Sharia law throughout the Malakand Division and Swat regions, as part of the so-called "peace" agreements with the Taliban in that area. The move to expand Sharia law throughout parts of the NWFP and Pakistan tribal areas has been in progress for months. But our president continues to claim that the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is our "strong ally." Is it going to build a "vibrant democracy" based on Sharia?
    The delusions about the Islamic Republic of Pakistan serve as a microcosm for the delusions about global Jihad and the unwillingness to recognize its basis in Islamic supremacism. As 9/11 served as the tactical wake up call for Americans on Jihadist's tactical threats, Pakistan serves as a strategic wake up call on Jihad's ideological basis in Islamic supremacism and the dangers of our continuing denial about it. But are the American media and government listening? Not really. They are shocked, they want to stop funding to Pakistan, etc., but they won't actually mention the word "Sharia" or the phrase "Islamic supremacism" in any reports, let alone the term "Islamist."

    But it is just an "extremist" problem, right? U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates certainly thinks so, and his mantra is "the enemy is extremism." In the June 2008 National Defense Strategy approved by Secretary Gates, the Defense Department makes it clear who the enemy is: "violent extremists." What are "extremists"? Well, the National Defense Strategy [sic] won't really tell you that - clearly defining the enemy isn't part of such a "strategy." Robert Gates' Defense Department report simply seeks to find a term that no one can disagree with, and since "extremists" could mean anything or nothing - it fits perfectly for a so-called defense strategy document that fears to even name the enemy. Even Osama Bin Laden is against "extremists."
    Compliant with the NCTC/DHS "terror lexicon" recommendations, you won't find the terms "Islam," "Islamist," "Islamic," "Jihad," etc., in this 2008 National Defense Strategy -- just "violent extremists." While the Taliban was busy during June trying to turn parts of Pakistan into a Sharia mini-state, Robert Gates' Defense Department was busy compiling a "defense strategy" that refuses to identify an enemy. Clearly the Taliban are not the only problem that the United States has in this war.
    Moreover, the Islamic Republic of Pakistan is not the only government agency with individuals who may be sympathetic to pro-Taliban individuals. In the July 31, 2008 Washington Times, Bill Gertz provides an interview with James K. Glassman, undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, who is working on programs to "push back against violent extremist ideology." Clearly Mr. Glassman got the NCTC/DHS "terror lexicon" memos too. Then Mr. Glassman goes on to praise Sayyed Imam al-Sharif (aka "Dr. Fadl") as a credible voice against extremists (whatever that means). Mr. Glassman fails to mention that al-Sharif calls for "Jihad in Afghanistan [that] will lead to the creation of an Islamic state with the triumph of the Taliban, God willing." This is the same Taliban that the American media are so outraged that Pakistan's ISI is reported to have been supporting. But Mr. Glassman is paid by American taxpayers as an American government employee to further promote individuals like al-Sharif to fight so-called "extremists," and the Washington Times prints his comments without rebuttal or challenge.
    Americans can find the challenges in our relationship with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan as an educational lesson if they are willing to think beyond the tactical monofocus of a "War on Extremism" (W.O.E.). We won't get this insight from some analysts, however, because such international relations and counterterrorism analysts are monofocused on who, what, where, and when, but with a complete and total disregard as to WHY. The lesson in America's challenges with Pakistan is that WHY always matters. Moreover, without an answer as to WHY, you have no national defense strategy.
    In addition to refusing to identify the enemy's ideology, some have also been waging a disinformation campaign that there isn't any meaningful connection between Jihad and an enemy ideology. Non-interventionist Marc Sageman makes this argument claiming that Jihadists are just "thrill" seekers. National Security Advisor Steven Hadley, urging patience with Pakistan, has called for more education in Pakistan and has launched schools in Pakistan areas, ironically, where Jihadist activity has since increased. The 2008 National Defense Strategy makes the argument that America needs to "understand and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies" (page 8). Counterterrorism analyst Farhana Ali tells Newsweek that women suicide bombers are primarily acting to "avenge the loss of male family members," ignoring that such women Jihadists kill other women and children. This same analyst claims that pro-Pakistani Kashmir Islamic women protesting against kufar (infidels) are fighting for their "freedom," while the Pakistan Taliban promise "every woman not wearing Hijab would be disfigured with acid."
    In addition to such disinformation efforts, there are those who would embrace Islamic supremacism as a political Islamism with which we can negotiate. The fallacy of this can also been seen in the failures with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan that has now become a haven for Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda and where Pakistan government staff are reportedly aiding the Taliban against U.S. soldiers, while American government leaders have been negotiating with this Islamic republic. What clearer example could there be of why negotiating with Islamic supremacists is an impossible tactic? Yet, while a Sharia mini-state is being created in Pakistan, the West Point Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) publication "Sentinel" published a June 2008 article by Peter Mandaville calling for engagement with Islamists as "a potential component of counter-terrorism solutions." Counterterrorism analyst Matthew Levitt makes a similar Cold War tactical argument that "political salafists have credibility when it comes to deradicalizing others." Arguing for engagement tactics that have clearly failed with Pakistan, these analysts claim that if we negotiate with Islamists using political methods to achieve their goals, it will prevent "violent extremism" (aka "radicalism") from growing.
    But there are no grays when dealing with supremacists. We can't compare supremacists to statists and believe that, like during the Cold War, we can persuade them gradually to move from Communism to Socialism, etc., based on degrees of supporting state management over individual freedoms. The challenge of supremacism is more than just a threat to liberty; it is also an unwavering denial of equality. Identity-based supremacists may use different tactics (terrorism, propaganda, elections), but their supremacist ideology remains the same. In addition to America's historical experience with fighting white supremacism, America's more recent struggles with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan should teach us this lesson. But that would require that we acknowledge that an ideology of Islamic supremacism exists in the first place and that our values of equality and liberty together are worth promoting.
    The desire to avoid identifying an enemy ideology is based on both denial and a fear of confrontation. Identifying an enemy as "extremists" is believed to "build consensus," but it is a consensus that means nothing, since the term "extremist" means nothing. Seeking to wish away an enemy ideology by blaming Jihad on "thrill" seeking, lack of education, poverty, "grievances," or revenge gives false hope and comfort for those in denial who believe that we can talk our way out of war with Jihadists. It is a sad era for America, home of the brave, when our Department of Homeland Security seeks to promote "progress" over "liberty", and when our Department of Defense claims that its mission includes promoting "prosperity" and "opportunity," but is distressingly silent on the values of equality. The primal American value that "all men are created equal" remains our primary defiance to supremacist ideologies.
    When it comes to the values and identity of America, the only thing we need fear is fear itself. We must not fear confrontation of supremacist ideologies over our values, based on disinformation that we can engage with supremacist individuals to end "violent extremism." The continuing challenges in America's relationship with the Islamic Republic of Pakistan prove how this short-term tactic does not and will not work. America's own history also shows that such a tactic won't work, and the only thing that supremacists understand is confrontation.
    The root problem comes back to acknowledging that there is an Islamic supremacist ideology behind Jihadist tactics, not just "extremism," not just terrorism for "thrills", not just "lack of education," not just "grievances," and not just desire for revenge.
    If we didn't understand the problem before, Pakistan should be America's wake up call on why we have no choice but to defy Islamic supremacism.
    As American soldiers are attacked in Afghanistan with the support and aid of those in the Pakistani government, don't we owe them our own courage to honestly identify the enemy ideology? Don't we owe our fighting men and women the courage of our convictions in supporting equality and liberty that we will defy -- not engage with, not pander to, and not submit to -- the enemy's ideology?
    Their lives are on the line.
    We must show them that the war against Islamic supremacism is our war too.

    http://counterterrorismblog.org/2008/08/pakistan_and_delusions.php
  2. jim summers

    jim summers Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,148
    Location:
    I reside in southern Indiana, you can almost step
    Whether the world wants to believe it or not the goal of the Islamic ideology is to convert everyone into Islam, and to date they have demonstrated their resolve in doing just that.

    They will not rest until that goal is accomplished, and if you are not willing to change your way of thinking then they have no problem with killing you and believe that is what they are suppose to do.

    To Whom Much Is Given, Much Is Required.
  3. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    And I have no problem with this, what so ever, as long as it is done through peaceful persuasion.

    Here is where the problem lies. Radical Muslims would spread their religion by the sword as they did in the 8th Century. They are willing to die for their beliefs. Unless Western Civilization is willing to kill in order to stop them, our survival as a society is in doubt.

    The radicals are a relatively small number compared to the overall population of Islam, but they dominate the faith. Until the moderate, peace loving Muslims stand up and clean up their own house, there will be no peace. I pray they do.
  4. AL MOUNT

    AL MOUNT New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    Messages:
    3,321
    Location:
    Cleaning my Thompson in The Foothills of the Ozark
    Sound off ...:eek:

    If I had a low IQ

    I'd wipe my butt

    with my hand too
    .....:rolleyes:

    Sound off 1...2...3....4
  5. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,067
    Location:
    Central NJ
    We don't have to worry about them. Obama the messiah is going to charm them with his wit and wisdom. Hope and change are near. :eek:

    Those folks cannot be negotiated with. We either annihilate or capitulate.
  6. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,878
    Location:
    New Mexico

    True enough, but if you take all of those small percentages from all the different countries and put the numbers to them, they add up to almost more people than are in the United States.

    This is no small force and should not be taken lightly.
  7. ponycar17

    ponycar17 Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2005
    Messages:
    5,053
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I agree with you USMC. The real problem as I see it, is that the radicals are using our occupation and war against them as a reason to spread their radicalism among all the peace-loving Muslims. It's kind of scary how they've made us make them stronger... :eek:

    I'm in no way discounting our involvement in Afghanistan or Iraq because I support the war but when you think about it, we could be helping the radicals. We're furthering the idea that Muslims are being persecuted and that Muslims need to fight back. This is a seriously sticky situation... :eek:
  8. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    You're not wrong in the least Marlin T. This is why I say it is going to take the non-radical Muslims to proactively keep the radical elements in check for lasting peace to come about.

    Ponycar, your right, they are using our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as recruiting propaganda, and damn the truth. I have a hunch that most of the recruits they gain through the line of misinformation they are using would join the radicals anyway. I may be wrong, but who can tell with any certainty.

    The way I see it though is that our success in those two countries is the last best hope for the Muslim world. If we fail, and the jihadists come to power, how soon do any of us think there will be some sort of large scale attack, likely nuclear, against a major city in the United States or possibly Western Europe? What will stop them? What would be the reaction of the West collectively should New York cease to exist? Or Washington D.C.? Or London? Or Paris? I hate to think of the consequences.
  9. Prizefighter

    Prizefighter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I'm not sure how surprised I would or wouldn't be if I woke up and found that there had been such a nuclear attack. My suspicion is that radical Islam is already - today - capable of such an attack.

    The situation bears eery similarities to Hitler's rise to power. Those of his rank and file who didn't totally buy into his mantra were convinced that it was for the best. I fear that it's more likely that radical Islam will spread among Islamists, rather than peaceful Islam doing anything to stop it.
  10. infidel_2_dabone

    infidel_2_dabone New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2008
    Messages:
    52
    Location:
    OCONUS
    The way I see it though is that our success in those two countries is the last best hope for the Muslim world. If we fail, and the jihadists come to power, how soon do any of us think there will be some sort of large scale attack, likely nuclear, against a major city in the United States or possibly Western Europe? What will stop them? What would be the reaction of the West collectively should New York cease to exist? Or Washington D.C.? Or London? Or Paris? I hate to think of the consequences.

    I dont like this thought either, it disturbs me greatly and I can only think of what will have to happen before the politicians and the majority of americans to wake up. I guess maybe sacraficing a couple of cities like you mentioned might do the trick.
    But our goverment would still procrastinate before retaliate.
    I say we just put the word out if this should ever happen again regaurdless of whose directly responsible we will hold countries like iran, saudia arabia , and all the rest responsable and will launch strikes against them with mrv warheads and send them all to there maker.
    Hit'em Hard!
  11. 45nut

    45nut New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,455
    Location:
    Dallas, TX
    The way I see it though is that our success in those two countries is the last best hope for the Muslim world. If we fail, and the jihadists come to power, how soon do any of us think there will be some sort of large scale attack, likely nuclear, against a major city in the United States or possibly Western Europe? What will stop them? What would be the reaction of the West collectively should New York cease to exist? Or Washington D.C.? Or London? Or Paris? I hate to think of the consequences.

    This is exactly why I don't think there are any peace loving muslims in the world. If they do nothing to stop other muslims from taking control of their religion, they are what LEO's call "accomplices" and are therefore guilty by association. If you are with a dude and he robs and kills a 7-11 clerk, guess what, capital murder charges go against you too! Unless you roll over on the other dude.

    If the "peaceful" followers of (a very bloody Mohamad I might add) don't overthrow the radicals; Kill'em all and let Allah sort'em out.

    Yes, I am intolerant on this subject, because tolerance is going to get our a$$es killed if we don't wake the &^%$ up.:mad:
  12. Nighthawk

    Nighthawk New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2006
    Messages:
    3,330
    Location:
    South Central Texas
    AMEN
  13. SolidVFR

    SolidVFR New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    346
    Couldn't have said it better...
  14. obxned

    obxned New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2007
    Messages:
    1,342
    They told you why 200 years ago - were you paying attention?

    In 1786, America’s Ambassador to France, Thomas Jefferson, joined our Ambassador in London, John Adams, to negotiate with the Ambassador from Tripoli, Sidi Haji Abdrahaman. The Americans asked their counterpart why the North African nations made war against the United States, a power “who had done them no injury", and according the report filed by Jefferson and Adams the Tripolitan diplomat replied: “It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every mussulman who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise.”

    Some things never change.
  15. USMC-03

    USMC-03 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2007
    Messages:
    1,825
    Location:
    Peoples Republic of the Pacific Northwest
    Re: They told you why 200 years ago - were you paying attention?

    And 15 years the Barbary War began from whence came the events that led to the line "to the shores of Tripoli."
  16. alvagoldbook

    alvagoldbook Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    Since this thread is directed towards me, I figured I might as well respond.

    Jeffrey Imm raises several good points in this piece, but much of it is based upon a false comparison. We cannot compare The War Against Terrorism (T.W.A.T.) with what the FBI did to fight the KKK in the 1960’s. Sure, in both we are fighting terrorism, but in one case we’re fighting domestic terrorism and in the other we’re fighting foreign terrorism. This is an important difference. The domestic terrorism that several white supremacist groups were responsible for was committed by American citizens. They had (more or less) a set of American values, ideas, and attitudes. They listen and watch American media and work at American jobs. It isn’t by accident that as American attitudes against racism changed, the membership of the KKK declined, as well as the personal and financial support that came with it.

    Still, in my opinion, domestic terrorism poses a greater threat than foreign terrorism. Since April 19th, 1995, when McVeigh blew up a building in Oklahoma City, killing 168 people, our nation’s intelligence agencies have stopped more than 60 domestic terrorism plots, all planned by conservative extremist groups (usually white supremacist groups). For instance, on May 20th, 2005 two New Jersey men, Craig Orler and Gabriel Garafa, who belong to neo-Nazi and skinhead groups, were charged with illegally selling to police informants 60 pounds of urea to use in a bomb. On Oct. 25th, 2004 FBI agents in Tennessee arrested Demetrius "Van" Crocker after he allegedly tried to purchase ingredients for deadly sarin nerve gas and C-4 plastic explosives from an undercover agent. On April 10th, 2003 the FBI raided the home of William Krar, of Noonday, Texas, and discovered 65 pipe bombs, remote control briefcase bombs, and almost 2 pounds of sodium cyanide, enough to make a bomb that could kill everyone in a large building. Krar too is a white supremacist.

    This, of course, doesn’t count the terrorists who are on the payroll of the Federal Government. One of the most blatant examples is the case of Emmanuel Constant. Constant is a convicted terrorist who committed several terrorist attacks in Haiti, but was not limited to murder and rape. Last I heard, Constant still lives in New York City and makes his living off US taxpayer dollars, via the CIA.

    Foreign terrorism is another thing. Statistically, the chances of you dying from a foreign terrorist is less than your chances of committing suicide. That means you pose a greater threat to your own life than terrorists do.

    Still foreign terrorists pose some marginal threat, that we should at least be aware of. It’s been several years now since T.W.A.T. began (presumably on September 12th, 2001), so we can make some measurement of how that military strategy has worked. The US National Counterterrorism Center has been measuring world-wide terrorist attacks since that time.

    In 2000 there were 423 terrorist attacks world-wide.
    In 2001 there were 346 terrorist attacks world-wide.
    In 2002 there were 199 terrorist attacks world-wide.
    In 2003 (the first year of the Iraq War) there were 208 terrorist attacks world-wide.
    In 2004 there were 3,192 terrorist attacks world-wide.
    In 2005 there were over 10,000 terrorist attacks world-wide.


    That’s a 500% increase in just two years. I have no idea what the figures for 2006 and 2007 are, because the Bush administration has since classified that information. I wonder why.

    Israel has similar problem. They have been facing a fight with Muslim extremists for 50 years, and have killed thousands of them. Yet with all the bombs the Israelis drop on the heads of Muslim extremists, none of them seem to be changing their minds, especially about Israel. Maybe, just maybe, you can’t beat people to a bloody pulp and have them say they love you.

    We should note that historically, the more the US leaves Middle East nations alone, the less likely Islamist extremists are likely to gain a foot hold.

    Case in point the first: Iran. Not to go through 50 years of history, but prior to 1953, Iran was a free and democratic state. During the Truman administration, Iran was our ally in preventing Soviet expansion. I won’t go into the boring details, but once Eisenhower came into power the US didn’t see Iran so much as an ally, but saw Iran’s democratically elected prime minister Muhammad Mossedegh as a Soviet agent, simply because Mossedegh got tired of being screwed by Britain’s oil company (which today is BP). So in ‘53 we overthrew Mossedegh, installed the Shah, which ruled over Iran with an iron fist to became the world’s worse human rights violator by 1975. Ever wonder why Iran has so many young people in their country? That’s because the Shah killed just about everyone prior to his overthrow in ‘79. That’s the kind of insanity that lead to an Islamist republic in Iran.

    Case in point the second: Egypt. At the same time that this was happening, a wild-eyed Egyptian pediatrician named Aymen al Zawarhiri (and the guy Osama calls “my mentor”) got the idea that the same deal could go down in Egypt. So Zawarhiri and some friends of his got together, called themselves Islamic Jihad, and killed Egypt’s Prime Minister, Anwar El Sadat. Zawarhiri actually thought that this would “wake up” all Egyptians to the wonderful way of life that is radical Islam, and cause a lovely Islamist revolution. Instead, what happened is the Egyptian people revolted in anger over the assassination, despite that Sadat wasn’t exactly the most popular guy in Egypt at the time of his death. Protests went into the streets of Cairo where people chanted “No to fundamentalism!”. Egypt remained free, and the US never dropped a single bomb on the country. This isn’t just a fluke either, which brings us to:

    Case in point, the third: Algeria. While all this was going on in Egypt, Algeria has a similar experience. Islamist nutcases tried to turn Algeria into an Islamist republic. However, the people wouldn’t have anything to do with it, and the result was that the Islamist extremists ended up blaming each other for not being radical enough. In the next several years, they ended up killing each other off, and while Algeria is hardly the beacon of democracy and freedom, it isn’t an Islamist state.

    And yet we have Iraq. A nation that at least had some pretension of being secular until we came in. Today, not so much. We have Afghanistan and Pakistan, both of which we have been bombing. And yet, they’re still as nutty as ever. Perhaps we need to examine really closely that definition of “insanity” and apply it to our foreign policy, that is if we really see radical Islam as the problem.

    Of course, all of this ignores the economic reality. We would not be in Iraq or Afghanistan today if this nation wasn’t mainlining the deadly drug of oil. We don’t need to fight a war against Islam, we need rehab. Without US taxpayer dollars flooding the Middle East and filling the coffers of Muslim dictators, they would hardly have enough spare cash to hand out to terrorists. If we were energy independent, the lunatics in the Middle East would just kill each other until all the extremists were dead….just like what happened in Algeria. As far as I’m concerned, that gives us everything we want. Plenty of cheap renewable energy, we could drive SUVs again, none of our boys stuck in a place they don’t belong, and a lot of dead Muslims. Sounds like beers and cheers all around to me.

    Or we could keep doing what we’re doing, and ignore that definition of insanity. One really smart guy once said:

    “Of all the ENEMIES to public liberty, WAR is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the DOMINATION of the few…In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended. Its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied; and all the means of SEDUCING the minds, are added to those of subduing the force of the people…The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war…and in the DEGENERACY of manners and MORALS, engendered by both.

    NO NATION COULD PRESERVE ITS FREEDOM IN THE MIDST OF CONTINUAL WARFARE.”

    -James Madison, April 20th, 1795.
  17. Prizefighter

    Prizefighter New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2007
    Messages:
    412
    Location:
    North Carolina
    I have no idea what the actual numbers are, but I wouldn't be surprised if one has a greater chance of dying than having one's mind changed.

    In essence, you seem to be suggesting that we try to ignore the radical Islamists at best, and try to placate them at worst. There were also people with that attitude in WW2 as well. Let's be glad we didn't subscribe to the policy then. You also seem to be ignoring historical data that doesn't corroborate your argument. It's nothing to be ashamed of, we are all guilty of doing that to an extent. But the history of violent Islamists killing in the name of Sharia law goes back a little farther than the year 2000 AD.

    So not only the US, but also Israel should simply leave others alone, and hope that they are left alone in return? Furthermore, when it comes to the terrorist attacks, we had it coming? The people who have been bombed and burned and beheaded somehow deserved it? I don't particularly feel the need to even contest this issue.

    I think we all know where the bottom line is. You have said some things that are 100% correct. First, we cannot be at the mercy of Middle Eastern countries when it comes to oil. Second, this war should end as soon as possible. Where I am sure we will eternally diverge is on how the end of the war should be brought about.

    The situation in Algeria is definitely favorable as you describe it. While we're waiting for lightning to strike twice, forgive me if I'd like to see our military taking certain precautions. There is also one key difference between the three countries you describe and those involved in this war. During those times, none of those countries engaged in the kind of confrontation that the United States has recently endured. Apparently, they had no interest in doing so, which is fortunate for them. Again, let us hope that this wisdom spreads throughout all of Islam, so that the war will come to a speedy, peaceful end.

    You don't believe that the radical Islamic terrorists are right, do you? Do they have the right to kill people in the name of their religion? What makes them the underdog in all this? The fact that many of them are poor? We have plenty of our own poor. If we should not attack them because it antagonizes them, then why should they not be held to the same standard? As the circular nature of the argument comes to light, one (hopefully) realizes that the "solution" you are describing is an impossible one. It's a grand idea, much like the idea of a utopia with no crime. Like that idea, it's also not going to happen during this millenium.

    Additionally, what of the people who are not themselves radicals or terrorists? Are they right in sitting by while the Taliban and Al Quaida presume to speak and act on behalf of all of Islam?

    Just what do you imagine is going on over there? How do you define "oppression?" The United States isn't dropping bombs willy nilly. It isn't subjugating villages of people or conscripting teenage boys. No marines are looting storefronts, or roaming the countryside in rape squads. What sin of America's is so grave that terrorists are justified in their actions, radical muslim or not? I wonder, would your argument be similar if you were on the other side of the fence? Would you be telling your muslim brothers in the Taliban that they should seek peace with America, because bombing only begets more bombing? Oh that's right, you wouldn't, because you'd either be on the bandwagon or you'd be dead.

    It's obvious that you are an educated individual, but you can't really expect many people to subscribe to the "can't we all just get along?" approach to foreign policy.
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2008
  18. Marlin T

    Marlin T Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    7,878
    Location:
    New Mexico
    Alva the appeaser, or is that just a natural thing when you are from the left?
  19. satellite66

    satellite66 New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2004
    Messages:
    2,067
    Location:
    Central NJ
    Not sure if appeaser is correct or if its just a case of BDS.
  20. alvagoldbook

    alvagoldbook Former Guest

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2008
    Messages:
    133
    An appeaser? What is appeasement? “Giving in” to people we have no business occupying or giving up your rights to right wing ideologues in the name of fighting an enemy that poses virtually no threat?

    Our government (and the people who run it) are more dangerous to your liberty than a bunch of nutcases living in caves half way across the globe. Giving in to these people, Republican or Democrat, is real appeasement. Given what was sacrificed to create this wonderful nation and the freedoms we all have to these people in the name of keeping you safe is servile at best. Personally, I would rather die on my feet than on my knees.

    Many actually did subscribe to that policy then. Worse still, some here in the United States were actually business partners with the German high command. Prescott Bush for one. But that is ancient history. As far as I’m concerned we did the right thing in WW2 in fighting the horrors of fascism. I think we should still be doing that. My only argument is that today those dangers are closer to home.

    I would agree that violent Islamists have been mucking things up for quite some time. The Crusades were fought for a reason. A poor reason in my estimation, but a reason none-the-less. Either way, we haven’t yet found a bunch of these wild-eyed nutcases setting off suitcase bombs in Sweden or Switzerland. They aren’t blowing up buildings in Poland or Luxembourg. Anthrax hasn’t been sent through the mail in Canada or Japan. Why?

    On the other side of the coin we should ask why we aren’t seeing terrorist attacks from people who might have a reason to be angry about what we’ve done to them in the past. No vengeful Vietnamese terrorists are cooking up sarin gas in Washington. No one from Grenada or Guatemala is strapping suicide bombs to themselves just to take out a few Americans.

    I’ve never been a fan of Ronald Reagan, but when the Marines were blown up in Beirut, Reagan decided to pull them out. Was Reagan an appeaser? Did the terrorists who attacked us there follow us home?

    What would fund the Middle East if we didn’t buy their oil? What if nobody in the world bought their oil? What if the United States, with all it’s might, decided to reinvent the wheel again and come up with a way to turn our energy economy into something that was 100% fossil fuel free and sustainable? I know there’s a lot of conservatives here who probably despise words like that, but really, what’s wrong with it? What’s wrong with getting rid of our addiction to oil? Wouldn’t the best way of fighting the terrorists is to stop giving them your money? I’d rather give my money to a lefty socialist in Venezuela than to terrorists any day. No one in Venezuela, no matter how you feel about their politics, want to blow up American cities and citizens. That’s why I buy gas at Citgo.

    But if we were able to give up oil completely, what would happen in the Middle East? Well, for one thing we wouldn’t have to worry about the oil that’s there. We wouldn’t have to worry about spending the tax dollars to keep those oil dollars safe and in American hands. Everything in the Middle East would dry up. People would pay about as much attention to Saudi Arabia as they do Chad, Tanzania, or Nepal. Chances are a lot of the people in the Middle East would end up killing each other. Is that a bad thing for us? Should we be spending our tax dollars to stop it? I don’t think so. I’m more worried about my own country and our collapsing bridges and flooded cities. To quote Merle Haggard, shouldn’t we be fixing America first?

    Of course, I don’t think that would be likely. I think the same thing would happen that’s just about happening in Iran. People there are getting sick of the Mullahs, and the young people want their freedom and democracy. Who’s better suited for bringing a country to democracy then it’s own citizens? Let them handle it and stay out of the way. The more we interfere, the more we look like the bully that needs to be fought. Every time Bush talks about getting tough with Iran he reinforces the Islamist nutcases who tell everyone in their part of the world that we are the “great Satan” who want to kill them.

    Israel has it’s own problems. I wouldn’t even begin to try to figure out how to solve them. I would note however, that no one in Israel seems to have figured it out either. I wouldn’t say we had terrorist attacks coming, but the CIA does have a term they call “blow back”. The potential for blow back should be considered when engaging in foreign policy decisions. Often it is. Sometimes it’s not. If you enter a war zone there is always risks, very serious risks. This is the best reason I can think of to avoid war unless you have no other choice. I know that if I was an enlisted man I would rather serve time in jail than go to the front line in an illegal unjustified war. Defending your nation is one thing, which I wouldn’t hesitate to do. Fighting a war for oil executives is another question. You wouldn’t find me doing that, even if gas was back to $1.20 a gallon. At $4.00 a gallon, you might as well be giving someone hundreds of dollars to shoot you in the head.

    None confronted us, and we didn’t confront them. We ignored them and left them alone. Egypt is a different case. Kissinger had the idea to try to westernize Egypt. We gave them a lot of money, we set up banks in Egypt, we made them more or less a modern economy, at least by Middle East standards. There was some blow back for that, as Sadat was assassinated. But that’s it. Not quite as bad as seeing Manhattan in ruins, but it was still blow back. I think Kissinger had a fairly good idea. If we should be doing anything in the Middle East, we should be trying to make them love us, not hate us. If we can’t do that, ignore them.

    I certainly don’t think the Islamists are right. To quote Carlin, whenever a bunch of holy people want to get together and kill each other, I’m a happy guy. I’d prefer these people to stew in their own juices and kill each other off. Let them actually contribute something to this world by fertilizing the desert sands. Do they have the right to kill people in the name of their religion? That’s not a question I have the right to answer. Do they have the right to kill people in the United States in the name of Islam? No. Not now, not ever. If the Saudi people want the right to kill each other in the name of their own religion, then I say have at it. Let me know when all of them are dead, maybe some Americans can buy some beach front property there then. I could care less if a bunch of Muslims are angry. I just don’t want them angry at Americans. We should stop giving them a reason to be angry, and better yet, stop giving them the cash to do something about their anger.

    If the people of the Middle East have a problem with Islamist nutcases running the show and making their lives miserable then they should get off their rear ends and do something about it. What if every Islamist nutcase was beheaded on video tape for throwing acid in the faces of woman who dared to show their eyebrows? Maybe something would change if over there if these people would stand up to their oppressors. If we want to help them out with that, then we should find some organization working for democratic change over there and give them money. Dropping bombs on people just pisses everyone off and makes you look like the an ass.

    Words do not describe what happens in a war zone. If you want to know why a lot of Iraqis hate us all you have to look at the link below. Full warning, the images are extremely disturbing. If you don’t have a strong stomach, don’t click.

    http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm

    I don’t know what I would do in their shoes, but chances are I would fight those nutcases until one of them put a bullet in my head, or I was free. My liberty is the most important thing to me, and I wouldn’t give it up for anything. As far as I’m concerned, the words “from my cold dead hands” applies to EVERY amendment.

    Thanks for the compliment, and yes, I agree with you. But I also don’t think we should subscribe to fixing everyone’s problems.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Attn NY! Micro-Stamping Bill Tomorrow!! Jun 1, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Attn: Florida Gun Owners: CCW May 12, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum ATTN CA: Ammo Attack May 6th!! May 2, 2009
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Gun control salvadorean style Jul 28, 2006
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A little input from El Salvador Jul 26, 2006