July 27, 2006
Zawahiri Calls for World Conflict
The terrorist calls for a Caliphate (Islamic State) stretching from Spain to iraq and also asked for martyrs. I have been unable to locate any part in which he offers to martyr himself. Zaqahiri has been in hiding since the US took Afghanistan. Terrorist mouthpiece al-Jazeera released the tape as ususal. I have a link to the video via AP here.
The terrorist calls for a Caliphate (Islamic State) stretching from Spain to iraq and also asked for martyrs. I have been unable to locate any part in which he offers to martyr himself. Zaqahiri has been in hiding since the US took Afghanistan. Terrorist mouthpiece al-Jazeera released the tape as ususal. I have a link to the video via AP here.Associated Press: CAIRO, Egypt - Al-Qaida's No. 2 leader issued a worldwide call Thursday for Muslims to rise up in a holy war against Israel and join the fighting in Lebanon and Gaza until Islam reigns from "Spain to Iraq."Also see Andrew Cochran at The Counter Terrorism Blog and Jihad Watch.In the message broadcast by Al-Jazeera television, Ayman al-Zawahri, second in command to Osama bin Laden, said that al-Qaida now views "all the world as a battlefield open in front of us."
The Egyptian-born physician said that the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah and Palestinian militants would not be ended with "cease-fires or agreements."
"It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," al-Zawahri said. "We will attack everywhere." Spain was controlled by Arab Muslims for more than seven centuries until they were driven from power in 1492.He said Arab regimes were accomplices to Israel. "My fellow Muslims, it is obvious that Arab and Islamic governments are not only impotent but also complicit ... and you are alone on the battlefield. Rely on God and fight your enemies ... make yourselves martyrs."
He also called for the "downtrodden" throughout the world, not just Muslims, to join the battle against "tyrannical Western civilization and its leader, America."
"Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny. Stand with us as we stand with you against this injustice that was forbidden by God in his book (the Quran)," al-Zawahri said.Kamal Habib, a former member of Egypt's Islamic Jihad militant group who was jailed from 1981 to 1991 along with al-Zawahri, said the al-Qaida No. 2's outreach to Shiites and non-Muslims was unprecedented and reflected a major change in tactics.
"This is a transformation in the vision of al-Qaida and its struggle with the United States. It is now trying to unite Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims and calling for non-Muslims to join the fight," he said.
Posted by: Howie at
08:34 AM
| Comments (40)
| Add Comment
Post contains 396 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Hey! There he is! This will be a three front battle for him. Afghanistano, Iraqo and Libano! Busy, busy, busy…OH, so busy these day’s, and that, with these temperatures, Pffffff. Hey, Burka #2, give me a Coke with lemon and ice! And hurry up!
Posted by: Dan at July 27, 2006 09:13 AM (Z2OsI)
2
Stand with Muslims in confronting this unprecedented oppression and tyranny................
............and we may save you and your countries for last.
............and we may save you and your countries for last.
Posted by: Graeme at July 27, 2006 10:28 AM (FIDTa)
3
I'm sure Spain's response to the call of making their country part of the Caliphate goes along the line of How about if we build you guys a Mosque, and an Islamic center of Virtue? aw come on, why don't you like me?
European countries seem to rank themselves on diversity (codeword for how they're now the minority in their own country) and how popular they are with other countries, seems they'll just stretch out their neck and press it against the blade.
European countries seem to rank themselves on diversity (codeword for how they're now the minority in their own country) and how popular they are with other countries, seems they'll just stretch out their neck and press it against the blade.
Posted by: davec at July 27, 2006 10:46 AM (voZp6)
4
Truer words were never spoken, Graeme. And I do not understand why the fools on the Left cannot see this. Or perhaps they do, and think they can somehow "deal with the devil" without getting burned in the process. Ain't gonna happen.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 27, 2006 10:48 AM (rUyw4)
5
You guys are hilarious. You are scared of your own shadows. Armchair pundits, dont you just love 'em!!!!
Get a passport. Buy a plane ticket to somewhere outside of the U.S. Educate yourselves about the world, the emphasis there is to "educate yourselves". Forget all the crap the "chimp has taught you". Then once enlightened, you will realise the follies of your ways and that the US is contributing more to global unrest than a search for global peace.
Get a passport. Buy a plane ticket to somewhere outside of the U.S. Educate yourselves about the world, the emphasis there is to "educate yourselves". Forget all the crap the "chimp has taught you". Then once enlightened, you will realise the follies of your ways and that the US is contributing more to global unrest than a search for global peace.
Posted by: clrjk at July 27, 2006 11:12 AM (gbpql)
6
You guys are hilarious. You are scared of your own shadows. Armchair pundits, dont you just love 'em!!!!
Get a passport. Buy a plane ticket to somewhere outside of the U.S. Educate yourselves about the world, the emphasis there is to "educate yourselves". Forget all the crap the "chimp has taught you". Then once enlightened, you will realise the follies of your ways and that the US is contributing more to global unrest than a search for global peace.
Get a passport. Buy a plane ticket to somewhere outside of the U.S. Educate yourselves about the world, the emphasis there is to "educate yourselves". Forget all the crap the "chimp has taught you". Then once enlightened, you will realise the follies of your ways and that the US is contributing more to global unrest than a search for global peace.
Posted by: clrjk at July 27, 2006 11:12 AM (gbpql)
7
You guys are hilarious. You are scared of your own shadows. Armchair pundits, dont you just love 'em!!!!
Get a passport. Buy a plane ticket to somewhere outside of the U.S. Educate yourselves about the world, the emphasis there is to "educate yourselves". Forget all the crap the "chimp has taught you". Then once enlightened, you will realise the follies of your ways and that the US is contributing more to global unrest than a search for global peace.
Get a passport. Buy a plane ticket to somewhere outside of the U.S. Educate yourselves about the world, the emphasis there is to "educate yourselves". Forget all the crap the "chimp has taught you". Then once enlightened, you will realise the follies of your ways and that the US is contributing more to global unrest than a search for global peace.
Posted by: clrjk at July 27, 2006 11:12 AM (gbpql)
8
Or we could, you know, educate ourselves as to how reality really is, and not care what the rest of the world wishes to delude themselves into thinking.
Posted by: MiB at July 27, 2006 11:45 AM (6jwxg)
9
clrjk = circle jerk??
Posted by: Veritas Regina at July 27, 2006 12:30 PM (PC/QV)
10
Veritas, exactly what I was thinking! Circle Jerk has been expounding at length at Wizbang too. You know, with big words like "chimp" and "peace" and "waaaah!"
Posted by: Oyster at July 27, 2006 01:11 PM (CeSpm)
11
Hey clrjk,
I have beem in eight of the countries over there. )ther than the neat history stuff, they can not hold a candle to what we have here and if we were not doing all of the heavy lifting for them, they would have lost that. You are the one that needs to look at what we have and compare it to what they have!
I have beem in eight of the countries over there. )ther than the neat history stuff, they can not hold a candle to what we have here and if we were not doing all of the heavy lifting for them, they would have lost that. You are the one that needs to look at what we have and compare it to what they have!
Posted by: Richard at July 27, 2006 01:21 PM (KNYEg)
12
Hey clrjk,
I have beem in eight of the countries over there. Other than the neat history stuff, they can not hold a candle to what we have here and if we were not doing all of the heavy lifting for them, they would have lost that. You are the one that needs to look at what we have and compare it to what they have!
I have beem in eight of the countries over there. Other than the neat history stuff, they can not hold a candle to what we have here and if we were not doing all of the heavy lifting for them, they would have lost that. You are the one that needs to look at what we have and compare it to what they have!
Posted by: Richard at July 27, 2006 01:22 PM (KNYEg)
Posted by: JeepThang at July 27, 2006 01:30 PM (0411H)
14
Scared? Who said anyone was scared of this Islamic retard? Much less our own shadows...A standup fight with these morons, who rely on the will of Allah rather than marksmanship, would last a week. I hope these cowards do answer his call and crawl out from underneath their rocks to fight. Anyway, hasn't OBL issued this same call for jihad about a dozen times himself? Ooooooh! Another call to jihad! God help us Jesus, God and baby Jesus help us!
Posted by: Jacks Smirking Revenge at July 27, 2006 02:16 PM (CtVG6)
15
Why is it that every picture I see of Zawahiri, he's got his index finger raised?? WTF is up with that? Has he just wiped his ass??? Damn that's annoying.
Posted by: Richard H. at July 27, 2006 03:16 PM (7KF8r)
Posted by: Howie at July 27, 2006 03:29 PM (D3+20)
17
I am scared, very scared of that finger. What kind of Doctor is he?
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 27, 2006 03:43 PM (D2g/j)
18
Why the delay?
Scenario 1:
Okay! That's the last straw! I just came out of my cave to learn that Israel invaded Lebanon 2 weeks ago. Jihad time! ( Next time one of you clowns let me know sooner okay!? )
or
Scenario 2: I had to take time to get the wording right. Jihad!
or
Scenario 3:
I am a very patient man! I have been holding my tongue for 16 days, but I am finally fed up! Jihad!
or
Scenario 4:
After fasting and meditating for 2 weeks Allah finally appeared to me with the answer: Jihad!
or
Scenario 5: How do you get this damn video recorder to work? Oh! That button! okay! Jihad!
p.s. Angry finger-waving is the body-language of the defeated!
Scenario 1:
Okay! That's the last straw! I just came out of my cave to learn that Israel invaded Lebanon 2 weeks ago. Jihad time! ( Next time one of you clowns let me know sooner okay!? )
or
Scenario 2: I had to take time to get the wording right. Jihad!
or
Scenario 3:
I am a very patient man! I have been holding my tongue for 16 days, but I am finally fed up! Jihad!
or
Scenario 4:
After fasting and meditating for 2 weeks Allah finally appeared to me with the answer: Jihad!
or
Scenario 5: How do you get this damn video recorder to work? Oh! That button! okay! Jihad!
p.s. Angry finger-waving is the body-language of the defeated!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 27, 2006 04:06 PM (gLMre)
19
I've never lived in the US and can assure circlejerk the muslim threat is widespread around the globe. The US are one of the few nations with enough balls to limit it's spread.
I too note the angry finger waving that crops up time after time. In civilized society it is rude to point.
I too note the angry finger waving that crops up time after time. In civilized society it is rude to point.
Posted by: Jester at July 27, 2006 04:12 PM (TuAMG)
20
Famous finger pointers include:
Clinton, who used to point when speaking until he learned to bend his index finger and hold it down with his thumb. (If I were a translator of body language I would say that this indicates someone who is capable of saying two contradictory things at once. ie. capable of lying)
Ahmadinejad seems to always wave an angry finger when speaking. (If I were to translate this body language I would say that this indicates someone who means what he says, has little or no self-doubt, and will walk all over the listener if given the opportunity.)
Cirjk: I'll bet you have never traveled.
Clinton, who used to point when speaking until he learned to bend his index finger and hold it down with his thumb. (If I were a translator of body language I would say that this indicates someone who is capable of saying two contradictory things at once. ie. capable of lying)
Ahmadinejad seems to always wave an angry finger when speaking. (If I were to translate this body language I would say that this indicates someone who means what he says, has little or no self-doubt, and will walk all over the listener if given the opportunity.)
Cirjk: I'll bet you have never traveled.
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at July 27, 2006 04:48 PM (aH6Zf)
Posted by: The Watcher at July 27, 2006 05:24 PM (Q2NLX)
22
God will judge Zawahiri and Ahminejad...it's up to us to arrange the meeting.
Hey Circlejerk, I've lived all over the world too, from the Philippines, to Panama, to Iceland and Japan, and not as a tourist, but years in each country. I've travelled through a lot more countries...England, Ireland, Holland, Korea, China, Indonesia to name a few, fromt he first world through the third world,... and seen how Western culture and medicine, technology, and even democracy, spread and supported by America, Britain, Australia and a few others with the resources to do so have improved the lot of most countries, whether they appreciate it or not. America has done more than it's share to pull even the most backward and self destructive countries up from the brink of the stone age. You haven't a clue. It's the Islamofascists trying to put the Genie of civilization back in the bottle, and make ignorant cows out of their own womenfolk, and make slaves of useful idiots like you.
Hey Circlejerk, I've lived all over the world too, from the Philippines, to Panama, to Iceland and Japan, and not as a tourist, but years in each country. I've travelled through a lot more countries...England, Ireland, Holland, Korea, China, Indonesia to name a few, fromt he first world through the third world,... and seen how Western culture and medicine, technology, and even democracy, spread and supported by America, Britain, Australia and a few others with the resources to do so have improved the lot of most countries, whether they appreciate it or not. America has done more than it's share to pull even the most backward and self destructive countries up from the brink of the stone age. You haven't a clue. It's the Islamofascists trying to put the Genie of civilization back in the bottle, and make ignorant cows out of their own womenfolk, and make slaves of useful idiots like you.
Posted by: doug in colorado at July 27, 2006 05:37 PM (XZy+R)
23
Oh, and do slaves realize how peacful slavery is?
Posted by: doug in colorado at July 27, 2006 05:44 PM (XZy+R)
24
Oh come the hell on. A lot of what you think is great about "western culture" is also what's so ridiculously wrong with it as well. I mean, take a look at modern medicine for example. Sure, it's lovely that we can all have peace of mind and expect we'll live to 100 someodd unless a run-in with death happens early...but what kind of life is that? Smaller families with less pensions for older people because there's so many more people needing those pensions as people age means straight to a cheap motel-like nursing home for a lot of people cuz they've no money and no informal care. That's often if they're lucky; and this is just one aspect. Don't be so quick to judge. Really, might as well let the jihad come and let us all destroy each other and get it over with...the destroying each other's gonna happen in some way sooner or later, jihad or not.
Posted by: sevram at July 27, 2006 05:57 PM (LvZeM)
25
I think by non-Muslims he means the defeated communists and socialists. We've already seen the pinko's in Italy siding with the Palestinians and some Imam's in Europe encouraging the Muslime Umma to vote communist. I believe U.S. forces have in fact captured FARC terrorists in Iraq! Yes, the same FARC from South America.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 27, 2006 06:31 PM (Bp6wV)
26
Be sure to notice in the new al Qaeda video the inclusion in the background of a picture of a burning World Trade Center building.
Now couple that with these finding in a Pew survey ..
In one of the survey’s most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries – 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.
A majority of Muslims in many different nations don't believe that Usama bin Laden orchestrated the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings ?
Usama is being "dissed" by Mulsims world wide. He can't get no respect.
No wonder they are pumping out these videos so often.
Now couple that with these finding in a Pew survey ..
In one of the survey’s most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries – 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.
A majority of Muslims in many different nations don't believe that Usama bin Laden orchestrated the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings ?
Usama is being "dissed" by Mulsims world wide. He can't get no respect.
No wonder they are pumping out these videos so often.
Posted by: Neo at July 27, 2006 06:53 PM (Yozw9)
27
Be sure to notice in the new al Qaeda video the inclusion in the background of a picture of a burning World Trade Center building.
Now couple that with these finding in a Pew survey ..
In one of the survey’s most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries – 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.
A majority of Muslims in many different nations don't believe that Usama bin Laden orchestrated the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings ?
Usama is being "dissed" by Mulsims world wide. He can't get no respect.
No wonder they are pumping out these videos so often.
Now couple that with these finding in a Pew survey ..
In one of the survey’s most striking findings, majorities in Indonesia, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan say that they do not believe groups of Arabs carried out the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. The percentage of Turks expressing disbelief that Arabs carried out the 9/11 attacks has increased from 43% in a 2002 Gallup survey to 59% currently. And this attitude is not limited to Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries – 56% of British Muslims say they do not believe Arabs carried out the terror attacks against the U.S., compared with just 17% who do.
A majority of Muslims in many different nations don't believe that Usama bin Laden orchestrated the destruction of the World Trade Center buildings ?
Usama is being "dissed" by Mulsims world wide. He can't get no respect.
No wonder they are pumping out these videos so often.
Posted by: Neo at July 27, 2006 06:55 PM (Yozw9)
28
I bet the Z man is really saying with that very long finger in the air is as follows: Soooooooooooeeeeeeee PIGS! GO HOGS! Arkansas Razorbacks number one. Allah Willing!
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 27, 2006 07:19 PM (8uWFo)
29
Neo,
The capacity of the Muslim mind for hypocrisy and for lying is actually quite infinite. I don't know if you've heard this but in their faith they actually have the concepts of "Taqqiya" and "Kitman"; the first word means "falsification" and the second mean "obfuscation". They are actually taught that if it is in the interest of Islam to lie then they must lie, and if it is in the interest of Islam to deceive and obfuscate then they must do these things. Islam is the only belief system I know that actually teaches its followers to lie! Mohammad in fact told them "War is deceit"! Now do you see why Muslims refuse to accept that it was a bunch of their cohorts that committed the osbcenity of 9/11?
The capacity of the Muslim mind for hypocrisy and for lying is actually quite infinite. I don't know if you've heard this but in their faith they actually have the concepts of "Taqqiya" and "Kitman"; the first word means "falsification" and the second mean "obfuscation". They are actually taught that if it is in the interest of Islam to lie then they must lie, and if it is in the interest of Islam to deceive and obfuscate then they must do these things. Islam is the only belief system I know that actually teaches its followers to lie! Mohammad in fact told them "War is deceit"! Now do you see why Muslims refuse to accept that it was a bunch of their cohorts that committed the osbcenity of 9/11?
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 27, 2006 07:36 PM (Bp6wV)
30
I'm of the same mind with Zawahiri on this one; at least in that I think we should make this a global war against islam. We should simply exterminate the vermin wherever we find them. No muslims = one less problem.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 27, 2006 08:26 PM (v3I+x)
31
Is it just me or does he have a rifle coming out of his arm im the picture?
Posted by: CanForce 101 at July 27, 2006 09:00 PM (BRXB/)
32
Canforce,
The rifle is behind him leaning against the wall. He is sitting on the floor. Yup, I'm afraid it's you.
The rifle is behind him leaning against the wall. He is sitting on the floor. Yup, I'm afraid it's you.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 27, 2006 09:02 PM (Bp6wV)
33
There used to be a theory that the rifle placement in his Videos were being used to activate terrorist cell activity, in some of his Videos the rifle is directly behind him, in others a foot or more to his right with the magazine facing in different directions, someone had compared the Video footage and noted that there was terrorist acts committed by Al-Qaeda after a certain rifle position, however it is most likely just a coincidence?
Posted by: davec at July 27, 2006 11:39 PM (voZp6)
34
I saw a clip of the idiots new message on El BBC news last night. During the struggle with the IRA they used to dub a different voice onto Gerry Adams so that his horrible guttural voice couldnt be heard by decent people. I would like it if the whole world just stopped broadcasting the crap that the deviants put out, that would really bug them, more than anything they want to be heard and be seen on the world stage. It pumps up their feeling of self importance. If we just ignore them and dont broadcast their crap but continue to hunt and burn their skins off them whenever we find them I think would be a much cooler way to pursue this war. We still have the pleasure of killing them but they dont get the propaganda benefits of our news channels. After watching some of the footage of the Israeli artillery in action, I wondered if they have any white phosphorous shells, if not why not? The USA has been sending 5000lb bombs through the UK to Israel, why not a ship load of willy pete shells? I want the scum to burn not just explode.
Posted by: Dave Clarke at July 28, 2006 09:01 AM (aSZES)
35
Just another thought. I think its time to try Arthur "Bomber" Harris's "Area Bombing" strategy again. He was receiving some flak for the thousands of nazi's he was killing every night and his retort was one of the best quotes I have ever read, he said "Every German city is not worth the bones of one British Grenadier". I feel the same about the muslim world. There is no need to put our brave guys in danger, we can raise their mud built cities to the ground without any brave soldiers being put in harms way, we have the technology so lets use it.
Posted by: Dave Clarke at July 28, 2006 09:13 AM (aSZES)
36
Damn right Dave; we should pound the largest city of every muslim county to dust. A good muslim is a dead one.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 28, 2006 10:28 AM (v3I+x)
37
davec, the position of my rifle is the one that allows me to get to it and engage in the minumum amount of time with the least amount of effort with the highest likelihood of success. And it's position is therefore not a coincidence.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 28, 2006 10:40 AM (rUyw4)
38
Dave Clarke--I agree with you that broadcasting this crap should stop. However, a bit of the other things you mention just help to make the point I previously stated...there are certain things about "western culture" that are not so great. This is a case in point when you say, "we have the technology so lets use it."
It's too bloody bad the first humans weren't born knowing just how big the world is rather than discovering it. Maybe we'd all have one culture and things like conflicting cultures wouldn't even be an issue. And really, that's what the whole point of this all is, isn't it? "Our culture's the better one and thus theirs should be destroyed." Doesn't matter which side, both really say the same damn thing.
It's too bloody bad the first humans weren't born knowing just how big the world is rather than discovering it. Maybe we'd all have one culture and things like conflicting cultures wouldn't even be an issue. And really, that's what the whole point of this all is, isn't it? "Our culture's the better one and thus theirs should be destroyed." Doesn't matter which side, both really say the same damn thing.
Posted by: Sevram at July 28, 2006 06:33 PM (LvZeM)
39
Sevram, that is not true. America puts pressure on Israel to give up land for peace. Israel gives up land, and Hamas, Islamic Jehad etc... start firing rockets, and blowing shit up.
America puts pressure on Israel to move away from Lebanon, Hizbolla moves right on in with Iran's, and Syria's help. What do they do? Shoot stuff, and blow shit up.
Both above stated examples show the differance between us, and them. We wanted peace, and tried for peace. Now that your Hizbolla, and Hamas etc... are getting their asses beat again, you want peace so you can regroup, and go through the whole B.S. again.
There is a big differance between us, and them.
Thank you, and have a great freedom of speech day.
America puts pressure on Israel to move away from Lebanon, Hizbolla moves right on in with Iran's, and Syria's help. What do they do? Shoot stuff, and blow shit up.
Both above stated examples show the differance between us, and them. We wanted peace, and tried for peace. Now that your Hizbolla, and Hamas etc... are getting their asses beat again, you want peace so you can regroup, and go through the whole B.S. again.
There is a big differance between us, and them.
Thank you, and have a great freedom of speech day.
Posted by: Leatherneck at July 28, 2006 08:01 PM (D2g/j)
40
F**k Zawahiri and his pseudo-religion.
Do the world a favour and nuke Mecca and Medina NOW!
A couple of trident missiles should do the trick
Do the world a favour and nuke Mecca and Medina NOW!
A couple of trident missiles should do the trick
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 28, 2006 08:28 PM (Bp6wV)
July 26, 2006
Penn and Teller on the Twin Towers
Posted by: Ragnar at
09:15 PM
| Comments (60)
| Add Comment
Post contains 7 words, total size 1 kb.
Posted by: Macktastick Wicked at July 26, 2006 09:35 PM (x+8Rs)
2
I lol'd. seriously. I'd especially loved the bacon bit. Hajis are more afraid of pork than they are of women.
Posted by: Fernando R at July 26, 2006 09:37 PM (ax2zZ)
3
Looks like the American public are realizing the truth that Islam ITSELF is the root cause of Islamo-fascist terrorism.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 26, 2006 09:43 PM (Bp6wV)
4
Yup. Thats about right. Penn and Teller did a good job.
Posted by: Cpl M at July 26, 2006 09:57 PM (5iZ3e)
5
We'll know this war is over when we build those towers in Teheran too.
Posted by: Eman at July 26, 2006 10:01 PM (ljoDE)
6
I think that's one of the things they hate most about us Americans.
We can do whatever the FUCK WE WANT....
We can do whatever the FUCK WE WANT....
Posted by: mrclark at July 26, 2006 10:17 PM (JOCiQ)
7
I think one of the things they hate most about us is not that we can do whatever the fuck we want in our country. Sure, women's rights and gay rights and abuse of the prophet bothers them when it happens in the west. But what REALLY causes the hatred is the perception that we believe we can do whatever the fuck we want in THEIR countries. And have consistently been doing that for decades. We've been propping up tyrants all over the middle east, tyrants who torture and kill their citizens. We've been knocking off various governments--ever wonder why Iranians hate us? Could have something to do with our role in knocking off the FIRST elected Iranian government in the 1950s, and installing the dictator the Shah (we had help from Brit intel, to be fair).
This point is treated with great insight in "Imperial Hubris" by the former top CIA officer on Afghanistan and Osama. We delude ourselves if we buy that ridiculous bit of fluff--"they hate us because we are free"...no, they hate us because of specific American policies. Some of them are great and should not be changed. Some of them, such as support for tyrants, should be reexamined.
This point is treated with great insight in "Imperial Hubris" by the former top CIA officer on Afghanistan and Osama. We delude ourselves if we buy that ridiculous bit of fluff--"they hate us because we are free"...no, they hate us because of specific American policies. Some of them are great and should not be changed. Some of them, such as support for tyrants, should be reexamined.
Posted by: jd at July 26, 2006 10:24 PM (DQYHA)
8
Hey jd...
Sell that shit on Kos.
They hate us for a number of reasons.
1. We're infidels and the worlds ONLY superpower. Well known fact that Islamotards can't stand being IMPOTENT when in our shadow.
2. We're infidels.
3. Jimmy Carter solved that little problem years ago by doing absolutely fucking nothing when the Islamotards took our consulate in Iran.
4. Did I mention that we're infidels...and they can't stand to see Infidels be more powerful than they are. Let alone just be plain ol happy go lucky infidels who have the cojones not to make our women wear sheets over their heads.
thanks for playing, apologist.
Sell that shit on Kos.
They hate us for a number of reasons.
1. We're infidels and the worlds ONLY superpower. Well known fact that Islamotards can't stand being IMPOTENT when in our shadow.
2. We're infidels.
3. Jimmy Carter solved that little problem years ago by doing absolutely fucking nothing when the Islamotards took our consulate in Iran.
4. Did I mention that we're infidels...and they can't stand to see Infidels be more powerful than they are. Let alone just be plain ol happy go lucky infidels who have the cojones not to make our women wear sheets over their heads.
thanks for playing, apologist.
Posted by: mrclark at July 26, 2006 10:51 PM (JOCiQ)
9
jd -
There's a certain element of truth to what you say, but your characterization is a bit oversimplistic, don'cha think? To a large extent, it depends on which "they" you're talking about.
Most of the militants actively working to establish the new caliphate could care less about what the U.S. did to reshuffle the Persian aristocracy 50-odd years ago, other than to use it for propaganda purposes to whip up the Persian masses. The caliphate builders (basically, the people we're most concerned about) are concerned with the U.S. because of what the U.S. is likely to do in 2006 to interfere with their plans to reestablish their Islamic kingdom in the Middle East.
Yes, we've supported some fairly tough people over the years, and we still do. Mubarak, for example, is definitely no civil libertarian. He imprisons and kills his political enemies. I'm fairly sure he tortures people he sees as a threat. We could, driven by pangs of conscience, drop all support for Mubarak and leave him to the Muslim Brotherhood. Or, we could sick Amnesty International on him and make him bow to their wish list as a condition of our continued support. Would you advocate we do that? Would you feel the same way if you knew without a shadow of a doubt that this would be essentially handing the entire northeast corner of Africa to an African Taliban?
There's a certain element of truth to what you say, but your characterization is a bit oversimplistic, don'cha think? To a large extent, it depends on which "they" you're talking about.
Most of the militants actively working to establish the new caliphate could care less about what the U.S. did to reshuffle the Persian aristocracy 50-odd years ago, other than to use it for propaganda purposes to whip up the Persian masses. The caliphate builders (basically, the people we're most concerned about) are concerned with the U.S. because of what the U.S. is likely to do in 2006 to interfere with their plans to reestablish their Islamic kingdom in the Middle East.
Yes, we've supported some fairly tough people over the years, and we still do. Mubarak, for example, is definitely no civil libertarian. He imprisons and kills his political enemies. I'm fairly sure he tortures people he sees as a threat. We could, driven by pangs of conscience, drop all support for Mubarak and leave him to the Muslim Brotherhood. Or, we could sick Amnesty International on him and make him bow to their wish list as a condition of our continued support. Would you advocate we do that? Would you feel the same way if you knew without a shadow of a doubt that this would be essentially handing the entire northeast corner of Africa to an African Taliban?
Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 26, 2006 11:04 PM (I9YKk)
10
Yes, JD, our actions in the middle east give them every reason to do the things they do. I hope the next time they send a child strapped with explosives into a crowded public place you can use the same reasoning.
Posted by: Fernando R at July 26, 2006 11:11 PM (Calrs)
11
It's the American way--whatever the fuck we want, motherfucker. And didn't a lot of our ancestors come to this country to get away from crazy religious assholes?
Posted by: cobalt blue at July 26, 2006 11:32 PM (quzVC)
12
So we don't allow a commie take power in 53.Big fucking deal.It sure looks like they choose wonderful governents in the Islamic states we don't influence. NOT.
Posted by: Randman at July 26, 2006 11:46 PM (Sal3J)
13
Actually, they really do hate the West because we're free. After all, didn't a whole horde of them go Tonya Harding recently over Danish freedom of speech?
Posted by: Northern Cross at July 26, 2006 11:56 PM (7vz05)
14
JD, if you want to be fair, then tell the truth. Operation Ajax was a British op, and they asked for our help, not vice versa.
The 1953 coup was engineered by MI6, but we got blamed.
The 1953 coup was engineered by MI6, but we got blamed.
Posted by: Vinnie - Editor In Chief Pro Temporeâ„¢ at July 27, 2006 12:07 AM (/qy9A)
15
JD, so it is US that are responsible for the muslim wars in Kashmir, and Chechnya, and Sudan, and the Philippines, and Indonesia, and Afghanistan, and... let me stop there to say, just like Penn did:
FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER.
FUCK YOU, MOTHERFUCKER.
Posted by: QC at July 27, 2006 12:33 AM (dIfqQ)
16
They hate us in part due to our insane support of Israel. Support them when they are right. The insanity of supporting and makeing excuses for their killing of innocents only reduces our credibility in the eyes of the rest of the world.
The problems between the Jews and muslims will go on forever. It will not ever cease. Sooner or later one will destroy the other. Both sides have shown the ability to kill the uninvolved to get their way. Where will America be in thirty years?
Well, we do need the oil. Big business rules. Supply and demand, logistics. Ha, ha.
The problems between the Jews and muslims will go on forever. It will not ever cease. Sooner or later one will destroy the other. Both sides have shown the ability to kill the uninvolved to get their way. Where will America be in thirty years?
Well, we do need the oil. Big business rules. Supply and demand, logistics. Ha, ha.
Posted by: Scott at July 27, 2006 06:21 AM (69hsc)
17
Some very thoughtful and not so thoughtful responses. Yes, to be exact, we merely supported brit intel in taking down Mossadegh's government in 53. I don't think one can fairly call him a communist though.
And yes, there was rioting around the Muslim world in response to Danish cartoons (I think I mentioned that originally, without denmark). But I doubt that can be disconnected from what we have done in that region. For example--Trey and Matt had Mohammed in a South Park cartoon, mocking the hell out of him, years ago--not a peep. But now, it's gotten too dangerous to do. These are elite driven outrages. The core of the hatred stems from our policies.
Very tough questions about Mubarak, A.S. Eye. It is clear today that if there were a fair election in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. This would be a huge risk, as they have elements of islamo-fascism in their midst. About 20% of Egypt is Coptic Christian. Would it mean a civil war, along the lines of Iraq? Would it mean a war with Israel? (it would probably mean an end to diplo relations with Israel, for a while, at least). Would it mean support for terror?
I don't know. But what is the alternative? Mubarak has destroyed, purposefully, any liberal alternatives to the MB. He wants to stare Condi in the eye, and say--who do you want, me, with all my torturing and anti-democracy dictatorship, or those crazy islamofascists? That's what he has done. And the question becomes--apres Mubarak, le deluge? We may get an uprising whether we support it or not. I'd rather go down supporting democracy. But it is a risky strategy, no doubt.
QC--I didn't say what you say I said. For the record, I don't believe, and have never said or implied, that we are responsible for Kashmir. Only a fool would say that. You apparently prefer arguing with foolish arguments that you make up yourself, rather than real ones. Do you prefer this because it is the only way you can win?
And yes, there was rioting around the Muslim world in response to Danish cartoons (I think I mentioned that originally, without denmark). But I doubt that can be disconnected from what we have done in that region. For example--Trey and Matt had Mohammed in a South Park cartoon, mocking the hell out of him, years ago--not a peep. But now, it's gotten too dangerous to do. These are elite driven outrages. The core of the hatred stems from our policies.
Very tough questions about Mubarak, A.S. Eye. It is clear today that if there were a fair election in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. This would be a huge risk, as they have elements of islamo-fascism in their midst. About 20% of Egypt is Coptic Christian. Would it mean a civil war, along the lines of Iraq? Would it mean a war with Israel? (it would probably mean an end to diplo relations with Israel, for a while, at least). Would it mean support for terror?
I don't know. But what is the alternative? Mubarak has destroyed, purposefully, any liberal alternatives to the MB. He wants to stare Condi in the eye, and say--who do you want, me, with all my torturing and anti-democracy dictatorship, or those crazy islamofascists? That's what he has done. And the question becomes--apres Mubarak, le deluge? We may get an uprising whether we support it or not. I'd rather go down supporting democracy. But it is a risky strategy, no doubt.
QC--I didn't say what you say I said. For the record, I don't believe, and have never said or implied, that we are responsible for Kashmir. Only a fool would say that. You apparently prefer arguing with foolish arguments that you make up yourself, rather than real ones. Do you prefer this because it is the only way you can win?
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 07:10 AM (DQYHA)
18
Scotty: Read jd's post and take some notes. jd and I may not agree on much, but he presents some points of discussion.
I understand you have a campaign to completely re-write the history books and the laws of economics. I wish you the best. Consider re-writing those pesky and onerous laws of physics while you're at it. Perhaps someday, my boy, you'll get the Nobel Prize, but in the meantime, we're probably gonna go on using the old, generally-accepted historical facts and boring, old-school laws of economics, so I'd suggest you learn how they work so that we can engage in something at least resembling a reasonable discussion.
I understand you have a campaign to completely re-write the history books and the laws of economics. I wish you the best. Consider re-writing those pesky and onerous laws of physics while you're at it. Perhaps someday, my boy, you'll get the Nobel Prize, but in the meantime, we're probably gonna go on using the old, generally-accepted historical facts and boring, old-school laws of economics, so I'd suggest you learn how they work so that we can engage in something at least resembling a reasonable discussion.
Posted by: The All-Seeing Eye at July 27, 2006 07:52 AM (I9YKk)
19
jd:
You said: And yes, there was rioting around the Muslim world in response to Danish cartoons (I think I mentioned that originally, without denmark). But I doubt that can be disconnected from what we have done in that region. For example--Trey and Matt had Mohammed in a South Park cartoon, mocking the hell out of him, years ago--not a peep. But now, it's gotten too dangerous to do. These are elite driven outrages. The core of the hatred stems from our policies.
In your prior post, I thought your assertion was that the folks in the ME hated us largely because we'd been "propping up" all those evil dictators (Mubarak, Hussein, Musharraf, Pahlavi) for all these years, but that doesn't square with what you're saying above.
It is clear today that if there were a fair election in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. This would be a huge risk, as they have elements of islamo-fascism in their midst.
"Elements of islamofascism"? "Elements"? A bit of an understatement, don'cha think?
About 20% of Egypt is Coptic Christian. Would it mean a civil war, along the lines of Iraq? Would it mean a war with Israel? (it would probably mean an end to diplo relations with Israel, for a while, at least). Would it mean support for terror? I don't know.
I think we both pretty much know that relations with Israel would end overnight and that "a while" might very well be the rest of our lifetimes. I think it'd mean, at best, brutal subjugation of the Copts. Very likely, we'd be looking at genocide. We don't have to look too far from Cairo to see what's been going on at the hands of the Janjaweed in Sudan and the Islamic Courts militias in Somalia. Given the level of violence committed against the Copts even today, I predict they'd soon disappear from Egypt under a government run by the Muslim Brotherhood, either by official sanction or government acquiescence of militia violence.
I'd rather go down supporting democracy.
I don't share your faith in "democracy." Democracy is not, after all, an "end" in itself. It is merely a means to other ends. If the "ends" served by democracy in a given situation are not ends any of us are in favor of, why should we support imposition of the "means" of democracy? Recall that democracy, Iranian-style, gave us Ahmadinejad. Perhaps we should all take comfort someday, as Israel is vaporized in a rain of Iranian nuclear warheads, that democracy prevailed?
You said: And yes, there was rioting around the Muslim world in response to Danish cartoons (I think I mentioned that originally, without denmark). But I doubt that can be disconnected from what we have done in that region. For example--Trey and Matt had Mohammed in a South Park cartoon, mocking the hell out of him, years ago--not a peep. But now, it's gotten too dangerous to do. These are elite driven outrages. The core of the hatred stems from our policies.
In your prior post, I thought your assertion was that the folks in the ME hated us largely because we'd been "propping up" all those evil dictators (Mubarak, Hussein, Musharraf, Pahlavi) for all these years, but that doesn't square with what you're saying above.
It is clear today that if there were a fair election in Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood would win. This would be a huge risk, as they have elements of islamo-fascism in their midst.
"Elements of islamofascism"? "Elements"? A bit of an understatement, don'cha think?
About 20% of Egypt is Coptic Christian. Would it mean a civil war, along the lines of Iraq? Would it mean a war with Israel? (it would probably mean an end to diplo relations with Israel, for a while, at least). Would it mean support for terror? I don't know.
I think we both pretty much know that relations with Israel would end overnight and that "a while" might very well be the rest of our lifetimes. I think it'd mean, at best, brutal subjugation of the Copts. Very likely, we'd be looking at genocide. We don't have to look too far from Cairo to see what's been going on at the hands of the Janjaweed in Sudan and the Islamic Courts militias in Somalia. Given the level of violence committed against the Copts even today, I predict they'd soon disappear from Egypt under a government run by the Muslim Brotherhood, either by official sanction or government acquiescence of militia violence.
I'd rather go down supporting democracy.
I don't share your faith in "democracy." Democracy is not, after all, an "end" in itself. It is merely a means to other ends. If the "ends" served by democracy in a given situation are not ends any of us are in favor of, why should we support imposition of the "means" of democracy? Recall that democracy, Iranian-style, gave us Ahmadinejad. Perhaps we should all take comfort someday, as Israel is vaporized in a rain of Iranian nuclear warheads, that democracy prevailed?
Posted by: The All Seeing Eye at July 27, 2006 08:32 AM (I9YKk)
20
As to what you said in response to QC's point, I took his point as a counter to your claim that the Muslims hate the U.S. only--or at least primarily--because the U.S. meddles in the ME.
If that's true, then how do you explain all the nations which are NOT involved in the ME, but are nonetheless targets of Muslim violence?
There's a common denominator here, but it's not "nations who meddle in Middle East politics"
If that's true, then how do you explain all the nations which are NOT involved in the ME, but are nonetheless targets of Muslim violence?
There's a common denominator here, but it's not "nations who meddle in Middle East politics"
Posted by: The All Seeing Eye at July 27, 2006 08:45 AM (I9YKk)
Posted by: Howie at July 27, 2006 08:52 AM (D3+20)
22
Let me summarize jd, Scott, et al: They hate us because we deserve it. We, speaking of Western civilization collectively, are contemptible, subhuman scum and should be erased from the face of the earth. It's too bad the Persians didn't conquer the Greeks so long ago, and then the rest of Europe, and nip Western civilization in the bud, because it has never produced anything but death, misery, and oppression for the poor brown people of the world.
What gets me most about whiney craptards like these is the fact that no matter how much they hate the West, they won't leave.
What gets me most about whiney craptards like these is the fact that no matter how much they hate the West, they won't leave.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 27, 2006 08:56 AM (v3I+x)
23
jd,
So, Mossadegh, a prominent member of the National Front Party, (akathe Iranian Communist Party) who advocated the nationalization of all foreign businesses and "critical" business in Iran wasn't Communist? When he led the drive to sever all ties with Western nations and join the Soviet Pact, he wasn't acting as a Communist? When the Soviet-trained Fadayan-i-Islam assassinated the democratically-elected former prime minister and Mossadegh was swept in during a wave of intimidation, he wasn't attempting a de facto Soviet coup? When Mossadegh used Communist- and Islamicist rioting to force the Shah to re-instate him as Prime Minister and grant him *cough* "emergency powers" he was just exercising the will of the common man?
And his decision to have all land government owned and begin building collective farms wasn't Communist? His backing by the stalinist Tudeh party isn't *more* evidence that he was not just a Communist, but part of an attempted Soviet coup?
I don't know what they are teaching in school these days, but even Edward Said has to admit that Operation Ajax was a counter-strike against an attempted societ-backed Communist coup that used assassination, terror, and intimidation to attempt to seize power.
So, Mossadegh, a prominent member of the National Front Party, (akathe Iranian Communist Party) who advocated the nationalization of all foreign businesses and "critical" business in Iran wasn't Communist? When he led the drive to sever all ties with Western nations and join the Soviet Pact, he wasn't acting as a Communist? When the Soviet-trained Fadayan-i-Islam assassinated the democratically-elected former prime minister and Mossadegh was swept in during a wave of intimidation, he wasn't attempting a de facto Soviet coup? When Mossadegh used Communist- and Islamicist rioting to force the Shah to re-instate him as Prime Minister and grant him *cough* "emergency powers" he was just exercising the will of the common man?
And his decision to have all land government owned and begin building collective farms wasn't Communist? His backing by the stalinist Tudeh party isn't *more* evidence that he was not just a Communist, but part of an attempted Soviet coup?
I don't know what they are teaching in school these days, but even Edward Said has to admit that Operation Ajax was a counter-strike against an attempted societ-backed Communist coup that used assassination, terror, and intimidation to attempt to seize power.
Posted by: Deep Thought at July 27, 2006 09:22 AM (U2bNV)
24
The post by The All Seeing Eye at July 27, 2006 08:45 AM- is exactly what I meant. Not only that, but it is not just the west, but the EVERY NON-MUSLIM society that they want gone.
Posted by: QC at July 27, 2006 09:22 AM (dIfqQ)
25
This latest from Penn & Teller is just part of a trend by lefturds who now realize that they have overplayed their hand with all their anti-Americanism disguised as anti-war, anti-Bush rhetoric. The propaganda stunt with the Dhimmis attacking al Maliqi for being anti-Semitic for his condemnation of Israel without also condemning Hezballah is also strong evidence of this, but it's not going to work. The lefturd position of anti-Americanism is tied in directly with anti-Semitism, because they have to oppose everything traditional conservative Americans support, including Israel. Especially Israel, because Israel, supported by America, represents the reconciliation of Judaism and Christianity, and is a symbol for the triumph of humanity over evil, which is why the lefturds have joined with the islamoturds to destroy it, and America. The lefturds and islamoturds share a common goal - global domination - but the lefturds realized long ago, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of China to capitalism, that they have no chance alone, so they joined forces with the sole remaining enemy of the West - islam.
Now, liberal, secular Jews are some of the biggest lefturds, and huge donors to the Dhimmicraps, but very few of them can condemn Israel this time around, because they realize that the slamoturds really mean it when they say they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews, and so the Dhimmis have to change course and stand with Israel if they don't want to kill their liberal Jewish golden goose, which will cause further rifts within the lefturd base, because lefturds universally despise Israel, and all Jews by extension, and I think a lot of liberal Jews are starting to realize with whom they've gotten in bed, i.e. hardcore communists and thinly veiled neo-nazi's, and are starting to realize their mistake. Oliver Stone's new movie, which I expected to be simply another anti-American, tinfoil-hat conspiracy screed, is actually, according to reviews, truthful and objective. Stone is one of the biggest anti-American lefturds around, but he's also Jewish, and maybe he's finally woken up, along with a few others, and maybe, just maybe, he and others will realize that Christian America doesn't represent the greatest evil in the world.
Look for Hitlery and other lefturds to start going to churches and synagogues pretty soon and actually saying good things about America and Israel. Then we'll know we've won.
Now, liberal, secular Jews are some of the biggest lefturds, and huge donors to the Dhimmicraps, but very few of them can condemn Israel this time around, because they realize that the slamoturds really mean it when they say they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews, and so the Dhimmis have to change course and stand with Israel if they don't want to kill their liberal Jewish golden goose, which will cause further rifts within the lefturd base, because lefturds universally despise Israel, and all Jews by extension, and I think a lot of liberal Jews are starting to realize with whom they've gotten in bed, i.e. hardcore communists and thinly veiled neo-nazi's, and are starting to realize their mistake. Oliver Stone's new movie, which I expected to be simply another anti-American, tinfoil-hat conspiracy screed, is actually, according to reviews, truthful and objective. Stone is one of the biggest anti-American lefturds around, but he's also Jewish, and maybe he's finally woken up, along with a few others, and maybe, just maybe, he and others will realize that Christian America doesn't represent the greatest evil in the world.
Look for Hitlery and other lefturds to start going to churches and synagogues pretty soon and actually saying good things about America and Israel. Then we'll know we've won.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 27, 2006 09:27 AM (v3I+x)
26
This latest from Penn & Teller is just part of a trend by lefturds who now realize that they have overplayed their hand with all their anti-Americanism disguised as anti-war, anti-Bush rhetoric. The propaganda stunt with the Dhimmis attacking al Maliqi for being anti-Semitic for his condemnation of Israel without also condemning Hezballah is also strong evidence of this, but it's not going to work. The lefturd position of anti-Americanism is tied in directly with anti-Semitism, because they have to oppose everything traditional conservative Americans support, including Israel. Especially Israel, because Israel, supported by America, represents the reconciliation of Judaism and Christianity, and is a symbol for the triumph of humanity over evil, which is why the lefturds have joined with the islamoturds to destroy it, and America. The lefturds and islamoturds share a common goal - global domination - but the lefturds realized long ago, with the fall of the Soviet Union and the opening of China to capitalism, that they have no chance alone, so they joined forces with the sole remaining enemy of the West - islam.
Now, liberal, secular Jews are some of the biggest lefturds, and huge donors to the Dhimmicraps, but very few of them can condemn Israel this time around, because they realize that the slamoturds really mean it when they say they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews, and so the Dhimmis have to change course and stand with Israel if they don't want to kill their liberal Jewish golden goose, which will cause further rifts within the lefturd base, because lefturds universally despise Israel, and all Jews by extension, and I think a lot of liberal Jews are starting to realize with whom they've gotten in bed, i.e. hardcore communists and thinly veiled neo-nazi's, and are starting to realize their mistake. Oliver Stone's new movie, which I expected to be simply another anti-American, tinfoil-hat conspiracy screed, is actually, according to reviews, truthful and objective. Stone is one of the biggest anti-American lefturds around, but he's also Jewish, and maybe he's finally woken up, along with a few others, and maybe, just maybe, he and others will realize that Christian America doesn't represent the greatest evil in the world.
Look for Hitlery and other lefturds to start going to churches and synagogues pretty soon and actually saying good things about America and Israel. Then we'll know we've won.
Now, liberal, secular Jews are some of the biggest lefturds, and huge donors to the Dhimmicraps, but very few of them can condemn Israel this time around, because they realize that the slamoturds really mean it when they say they want to destroy Israel and kill all the Jews, and so the Dhimmis have to change course and stand with Israel if they don't want to kill their liberal Jewish golden goose, which will cause further rifts within the lefturd base, because lefturds universally despise Israel, and all Jews by extension, and I think a lot of liberal Jews are starting to realize with whom they've gotten in bed, i.e. hardcore communists and thinly veiled neo-nazi's, and are starting to realize their mistake. Oliver Stone's new movie, which I expected to be simply another anti-American, tinfoil-hat conspiracy screed, is actually, according to reviews, truthful and objective. Stone is one of the biggest anti-American lefturds around, but he's also Jewish, and maybe he's finally woken up, along with a few others, and maybe, just maybe, he and others will realize that Christian America doesn't represent the greatest evil in the world.
Look for Hitlery and other lefturds to start going to churches and synagogues pretty soon and actually saying good things about America and Israel. Then we'll know we've won.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 27, 2006 09:35 AM (v3I+x)
27
If radical Islam is truly "motivated" by resentment of Western interference in Muslim states, then why do they not say so more often? Certainly it was the infidel presence in the ME that was used to justify 9/11 by Bin Laden, but does anyone find that an acceptable excuse? Persons of unclean blood are dwelling on our holy soil, so killing 3000+ civilians is acceptable?
It seems to me that "they hate us" not for the actions we have made, but simply because of who we are. It would seem that many radical muslims find the distinction between a "Muslim" and an "infidel" state a temporary and artificial one. Radical Islam in GB is trying to morph the infidel British state into one that observes Sharia law. One would think that current acts of terror in GB are connected to this goal, not to British foreign policy objectives circa 1953.
jd's tacit assertion seems to be that "if" the US had only remained a foreign policy autarky re: the ME in the Cold War "then" radical Islam would have no reason to despise the West. This argument appears rather weak. OECD states tamper with the governments and policies of weaker states. Such behavior was rampant during the Cold War. It seems that if jd is correct, then the West (and particularly the US) should be just as vehemently hated by Japan, many South and Central American states, several C&E European states, etc. Likewise, the remnants of the Soviet Union should be under attack by all the states that were unwillingly made proxies by the USSR in the Cold War era.
It seems to me that "they hate us" not for the actions we have made, but simply because of who we are. It would seem that many radical muslims find the distinction between a "Muslim" and an "infidel" state a temporary and artificial one. Radical Islam in GB is trying to morph the infidel British state into one that observes Sharia law. One would think that current acts of terror in GB are connected to this goal, not to British foreign policy objectives circa 1953.
jd's tacit assertion seems to be that "if" the US had only remained a foreign policy autarky re: the ME in the Cold War "then" radical Islam would have no reason to despise the West. This argument appears rather weak. OECD states tamper with the governments and policies of weaker states. Such behavior was rampant during the Cold War. It seems that if jd is correct, then the West (and particularly the US) should be just as vehemently hated by Japan, many South and Central American states, several C&E European states, etc. Likewise, the remnants of the Soviet Union should be under attack by all the states that were unwillingly made proxies by the USSR in the Cold War era.
Posted by: Driver at July 27, 2006 09:45 AM (8aMv2)
28
Maxie........clap..clap...clap.......well said, my friend.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 27, 2006 10:35 AM (rUyw4)
29
Deep Thought--you are better informed than I about Mossadegh. What you say does not square with what I know, but it sounds like you have done more research. I will look into it.
As for the explanation of QC's comment. The fact that Islam has arguments with many societies does not mean that they hate us for who we are (or, that they hate us because of who THEY are). Kashmir is actually a legitimate debate, in which unlike almost all other Brit-India states, Kashmir went with India even though a majority of its population would have gone with Pakistan.
Islam has, however, in the words of Samuel Huntington, particularly bloody borders. Islam is also in desperate need of a reformation, an adjustment of the practices of it to take into account modernity and diversity. This is a war within Islam, as well as a war with Islam.
I don't agree, Eye, on your egyptian scenario. The brotherhood is not composed of zealots entirely. Indeed, I'm not sure the zealots would win. What happens in many Arab societies (Algeria, for example) is that the authoritarians kill the moderates, and are so extreme that only extremists survive. This radicalizes Islamic forces. If Mubarak could give way soon, I don't think the brotherhood would go extremist (look at their treatment of Osama). There have been contacts with the Copts, who are not doing so great under Mubarak. I agree your scenario is possible. I don't think it is inevitable, or even the most likely. But I am not an expert on Egyptian politics and culture, and I don't even speak Arabic. If we have learned nothing else from this disastrous war in Iraq, we've learned, I hope, the difficulty of predicting what will happen in such situations. Yet what is happening there now is unsustainable, and an ugly trend.
In the final analysis, it is comforting to think that they hate us because of what we are, not because of what we do. We can't change what we are, and thus, need engage in no analysis. We are morally in the right, entirely, if they hate us because we are free. We are justified in all the actions we take. I can see the attraction of thinking that. I just don't agree. They'd be fine if we would have gay sex and promiscuity and do drugs and be "free" if we just did it over here. It's the policies over there that explain the majority of the hatred, in my opinion.
As for the explanation of QC's comment. The fact that Islam has arguments with many societies does not mean that they hate us for who we are (or, that they hate us because of who THEY are). Kashmir is actually a legitimate debate, in which unlike almost all other Brit-India states, Kashmir went with India even though a majority of its population would have gone with Pakistan.
Islam has, however, in the words of Samuel Huntington, particularly bloody borders. Islam is also in desperate need of a reformation, an adjustment of the practices of it to take into account modernity and diversity. This is a war within Islam, as well as a war with Islam.
I don't agree, Eye, on your egyptian scenario. The brotherhood is not composed of zealots entirely. Indeed, I'm not sure the zealots would win. What happens in many Arab societies (Algeria, for example) is that the authoritarians kill the moderates, and are so extreme that only extremists survive. This radicalizes Islamic forces. If Mubarak could give way soon, I don't think the brotherhood would go extremist (look at their treatment of Osama). There have been contacts with the Copts, who are not doing so great under Mubarak. I agree your scenario is possible. I don't think it is inevitable, or even the most likely. But I am not an expert on Egyptian politics and culture, and I don't even speak Arabic. If we have learned nothing else from this disastrous war in Iraq, we've learned, I hope, the difficulty of predicting what will happen in such situations. Yet what is happening there now is unsustainable, and an ugly trend.
In the final analysis, it is comforting to think that they hate us because of what we are, not because of what we do. We can't change what we are, and thus, need engage in no analysis. We are morally in the right, entirely, if they hate us because we are free. We are justified in all the actions we take. I can see the attraction of thinking that. I just don't agree. They'd be fine if we would have gay sex and promiscuity and do drugs and be "free" if we just did it over here. It's the policies over there that explain the majority of the hatred, in my opinion.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 10:38 AM (aqTJB)
30
Incidentally, odd historical fact: do you know who was assisting Brit intel on bringing down the Iranian government? Kermit Roosevelt and Miles Copeland, both of the CIA. Kermit was a descendant of TR, and Miles was the father of Stewart Copeland, the drummer for the Police.
Small world, eh?
Small world, eh?
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 10:39 AM (aqTJB)
31
Genius. I loved it!
Note to self: next time you listen to anything at Jawa at work, turn down the volume...
Note to self: next time you listen to anything at Jawa at work, turn down the volume...
Posted by: HD Wanderer at July 27, 2006 10:50 AM (nA9AR)
32
The one thing, and very telling it is, that jd conspicuously fails to mention, is that all US foreign and domestic policy efforts in the post WW2 period were directed toward stopping the spread of Communism, which was a valid threat despite what apoligists and propagandists would have anyone believe. Joe McCarthy et al have been proven right by history, but that doesn't stop liars like jd from trying to twist the facts into another weapon to use against America. If jd and his ilk hate America so much, they should leave. In fact, I would highly recommend it, for safety's sake, given the sea-change that is occuring.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 27, 2006 11:05 AM (v3I+x)
33
JD,
"They hate us b/c of our policies." OK, what policies? Is it b/c we were involved in setting up some regime that is still in power there? If so, why aren't they fighting more to overthrow that regime? If it is b/c of regimes we helped in the past, who no longer are in power - why? We have meddled in other parts of the world (South America) and not produced suicied bombers and terrorists who go after America, Spain, England, Australia, and any other western country. So why does this excuse Islam?
If it is b/c of policies we have currently, as far as supporting Isreal, why don't these groups work through their governments to try to get us to change policies - the way civilized peoples do?
Your answer - they hate us b/c of our polcies, is really an excuse for Islamofascists. It contains moral relativism.
I would point out that A) america is not the only country to meddle in the affiars of other countries (hell, other countries try to meddle in the affairs of america); and we are not the only country to attempt to meddle in the Middle East.
This does not excuse terrorism, and does not mean we should re-evaluate our policies. I hate the UN - is it ok for me to go out and blow up their offices? If I do, will you be first in line saying that the UN should re-examine and change its policies b/c I hate them, and my hatred of their policies is valid?
And, why do you go to such lengths to explain terrorists' groups reasoning beyond what they themselves say? If you read stuff that has been translated from Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other islamofascist groups, it is very clear that they claim to hate us b/c we are infidels and they want to restore the Caliphate. They don't pretend it is about nuanced foreign policy questions. So, why are you so determined to make it about the same, when the people you are defending are not?
Why, in other words, do you refuse to take the terrorists at their very word?
I know liberals believe everything can be solved by solving "root causes." But, what if the "root cause" here is exactly what the terrorsts say it is - i.e., that they want to restore the caliphate and establish sharia law over as much of the world as possible - and continue down that path until the whole world is under Sharia?
How do we solve that expressly stated root cause by changing our foriegn policy?
- GB
"They hate us b/c of our policies." OK, what policies? Is it b/c we were involved in setting up some regime that is still in power there? If so, why aren't they fighting more to overthrow that regime? If it is b/c of regimes we helped in the past, who no longer are in power - why? We have meddled in other parts of the world (South America) and not produced suicied bombers and terrorists who go after America, Spain, England, Australia, and any other western country. So why does this excuse Islam?
If it is b/c of policies we have currently, as far as supporting Isreal, why don't these groups work through their governments to try to get us to change policies - the way civilized peoples do?
Your answer - they hate us b/c of our polcies, is really an excuse for Islamofascists. It contains moral relativism.
I would point out that A) america is not the only country to meddle in the affiars of other countries (hell, other countries try to meddle in the affairs of america); and we are not the only country to attempt to meddle in the Middle East.
This does not excuse terrorism, and does not mean we should re-evaluate our policies. I hate the UN - is it ok for me to go out and blow up their offices? If I do, will you be first in line saying that the UN should re-examine and change its policies b/c I hate them, and my hatred of their policies is valid?
And, why do you go to such lengths to explain terrorists' groups reasoning beyond what they themselves say? If you read stuff that has been translated from Al Queda, Hamas, Hezbollah, and other islamofascist groups, it is very clear that they claim to hate us b/c we are infidels and they want to restore the Caliphate. They don't pretend it is about nuanced foreign policy questions. So, why are you so determined to make it about the same, when the people you are defending are not?
Why, in other words, do you refuse to take the terrorists at their very word?
I know liberals believe everything can be solved by solving "root causes." But, what if the "root cause" here is exactly what the terrorsts say it is - i.e., that they want to restore the caliphate and establish sharia law over as much of the world as possible - and continue down that path until the whole world is under Sharia?
How do we solve that expressly stated root cause by changing our foriegn policy?
- GB
Posted by: Great Banana at July 27, 2006 11:32 AM (JFj6P)
34
GB--I did not say, nor have I ever believed, that anything we do "justifies" terrorism. The debate is--do they hate us because of who we are, or do they hate us because of what we do? Seeking out why they hate us does not equal justifying what they do in reaction to that hatred. We must be sophisticated in our understanding of the enemy. Terrorism swims in a sea of hatred of America. The vast majority of those who hate us will not become suicide bombers, but every Muslim who hates us becomes a potential bomber as well as supporter. Without such supporters, passive or active, terrorism becomes much less of a threat.
I assume the above answers your question about my response if you suicide bombed the UN.
If you follow the Pope argument, then the reason that Latin Americans have not responded to similar intervention with similar suicide bombings is simple: it is not yet hopeless there. But I'm willing to be convinced also that there is something special about Islam, although the first suicide bombers were not Islamic, but Tamils (leaving aside the kamikaze for the moment).
What specific policies? Propping up Saudi and Egypt, for starters. Going around saying we believe in democracy while we are in bed with tyrants.
And you are WRONG about Hamas. They don't seek to restore a caliphate. Those bastards want to push the Israelis back into the sea. Equally evil, perhaps, but different.
BTW, your argument about a caliphate refutes the statement that they hate us because we are free. Even Osama doesn't care so much what we do in NYC or in LA. This point is made eloquently in Imperial Hubris by the CIA's top expert on Osama. He cares what we do in the caliphate territories, the former lands of the Muslim caliphs. They never had NYC. (Of course, if I lived in Lisbon, I'd be a little less sanguine, but truth is, this caliphate is fantasy, and should be feared by no one.)
I assume the above answers your question about my response if you suicide bombed the UN.
If you follow the Pope argument, then the reason that Latin Americans have not responded to similar intervention with similar suicide bombings is simple: it is not yet hopeless there. But I'm willing to be convinced also that there is something special about Islam, although the first suicide bombers were not Islamic, but Tamils (leaving aside the kamikaze for the moment).
What specific policies? Propping up Saudi and Egypt, for starters. Going around saying we believe in democracy while we are in bed with tyrants.
And you are WRONG about Hamas. They don't seek to restore a caliphate. Those bastards want to push the Israelis back into the sea. Equally evil, perhaps, but different.
BTW, your argument about a caliphate refutes the statement that they hate us because we are free. Even Osama doesn't care so much what we do in NYC or in LA. This point is made eloquently in Imperial Hubris by the CIA's top expert on Osama. He cares what we do in the caliphate territories, the former lands of the Muslim caliphs. They never had NYC. (Of course, if I lived in Lisbon, I'd be a little less sanguine, but truth is, this caliphate is fantasy, and should be feared by no one.)
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 11:52 AM (aqTJB)
35
Oh, and why don't they attack Egypt's government, if they are so mad at Mubarak, instead of blowing up our people?
They HAVE been fighting Mubarak. For decades. From their perspective (I don't think they are right), attacking Mubarak is a waste of time so long as he is so tight with the world's greatest military power. So they decided to take the fight to Mubarak's sugar daddy.
They HAVE been fighting Mubarak. For decades. From their perspective (I don't think they are right), attacking Mubarak is a waste of time so long as he is so tight with the world's greatest military power. So they decided to take the fight to Mubarak's sugar daddy.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 11:53 AM (aqTJB)
36
Deep Thought--are you sure about Mossadegh and his communist ways? Turns out the CIA was hiring Iranians to pose as Communist supporters of Mossadegh. That's not crazy leftist shyte--that's the CIA's own documents. Check out
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
Also, where/when did Said say that about Iran? I can't seem to find that quote in any of his books.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html
Also, where/when did Said say that about Iran? I can't seem to find that quote in any of his books.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 11:58 AM (aqTJB)
37
JD,
Do you really believe that if they restore the Caliphate - they will stop there? Or, and I'm just basing this on what they actually say, they will continue on until they dominate the world?
And you point to one thing - fighting Mubarak. How about they fight to overthrow the Saudis, or anyone else in that region. Do you really believe that they bomb Australians b/c of US of the nuances in US foreign policy?
And, things aren't hopeless in Latin America yet? Compared to the oil wealth in the ME? ARe you insane? So, they hate us b/c we propped up the Saudis, which lead them to bomb Spain, England and Australia? Plus the violence in the Sudan, somalia, and the Russian islamic terrorists?
Do you really believe this nonesense? And, again, why can't you simply take them at the word instead of seeking ways to blame American foriegn policy? Do you hate the US that much? Why can't you take them at their word? Why? Please, why does it have to be more complicated than what they actually say?
I assume that if we hate the foriegn policy of another nation, we can blow stuff up, and your response will be that that nation (let's say France, just for fun) should re-examine its foriegn policy and chance it to stop us hating it? If not, why not? What is the difference in what you propose here? Why is it ok for them to bomb us into changing our foriegn policy but we can't do the same to France?
Seriously? And, one more time - why are you unwilling to take what the terrorist groups say about their goals and rational seriously? Why, instead do you seek for ways to blame america for what they do?
- GB
Do you really believe that if they restore the Caliphate - they will stop there? Or, and I'm just basing this on what they actually say, they will continue on until they dominate the world?
And you point to one thing - fighting Mubarak. How about they fight to overthrow the Saudis, or anyone else in that region. Do you really believe that they bomb Australians b/c of US of the nuances in US foreign policy?
And, things aren't hopeless in Latin America yet? Compared to the oil wealth in the ME? ARe you insane? So, they hate us b/c we propped up the Saudis, which lead them to bomb Spain, England and Australia? Plus the violence in the Sudan, somalia, and the Russian islamic terrorists?
Do you really believe this nonesense? And, again, why can't you simply take them at the word instead of seeking ways to blame American foriegn policy? Do you hate the US that much? Why can't you take them at their word? Why? Please, why does it have to be more complicated than what they actually say?
I assume that if we hate the foriegn policy of another nation, we can blow stuff up, and your response will be that that nation (let's say France, just for fun) should re-examine its foriegn policy and chance it to stop us hating it? If not, why not? What is the difference in what you propose here? Why is it ok for them to bomb us into changing our foriegn policy but we can't do the same to France?
Seriously? And, one more time - why are you unwilling to take what the terrorist groups say about their goals and rational seriously? Why, instead do you seek for ways to blame america for what they do?
- GB
Posted by: great banana at July 27, 2006 12:41 PM (JFj6P)
38
jd -
First of all, it'd be helpful to acknowledge that there isn't a unifom, collective "they". The "they" you speak of is a complex mishmash of interests and motivations. Osama's motivations & interests are different than those of the Hamas leadership. The motivations & interests of the leadership aren't always aligned to those of the rank & file.
Now, with respect to the Arabs and Muslims who are motivated by U.S. foreign policy, issue #1 is our support for Israel. That support is not going to end anytime soon, if ever. Kissing the fanatics' asses in every other area of foreign policy and continuing to support Israel would buy us zilch. In other words, how about we cut out the all "foreign policy" euphemisms and address the real issue. For my part, Israel has my unwavering support to do what it needs to do to survive. If Israel ever begins to act like the mythical beast its enemies have conjured up in their pallywood propaganda, I may change my opinion. Until then, anyone who has a problem with my Israeli brothers and sisters has a problem with me. End of story.
You seem to dismiss the possibility of a re-established Caliphate, but you provide nothing to back up your claim that it's merely a "fantasy". Bin Laden and Zawahiri, both educated men, have moved themselves into the wilderness based on their belief that a new Caliphate isn't at all a fantasy. I've heard a lot of criticism of those two over the years, but I don't think they're crazy or misinformed, and I think it'd be a serious mistake in judgment to dismiss them as lunatics. If you assume they're sane, informed and intelligent, and you accept that THEY believe that they can succeed in rebuilding the Caliphate, what do YOU know that THEY don't?
First of all, it'd be helpful to acknowledge that there isn't a unifom, collective "they". The "they" you speak of is a complex mishmash of interests and motivations. Osama's motivations & interests are different than those of the Hamas leadership. The motivations & interests of the leadership aren't always aligned to those of the rank & file.
Now, with respect to the Arabs and Muslims who are motivated by U.S. foreign policy, issue #1 is our support for Israel. That support is not going to end anytime soon, if ever. Kissing the fanatics' asses in every other area of foreign policy and continuing to support Israel would buy us zilch. In other words, how about we cut out the all "foreign policy" euphemisms and address the real issue. For my part, Israel has my unwavering support to do what it needs to do to survive. If Israel ever begins to act like the mythical beast its enemies have conjured up in their pallywood propaganda, I may change my opinion. Until then, anyone who has a problem with my Israeli brothers and sisters has a problem with me. End of story.
You seem to dismiss the possibility of a re-established Caliphate, but you provide nothing to back up your claim that it's merely a "fantasy". Bin Laden and Zawahiri, both educated men, have moved themselves into the wilderness based on their belief that a new Caliphate isn't at all a fantasy. I've heard a lot of criticism of those two over the years, but I don't think they're crazy or misinformed, and I think it'd be a serious mistake in judgment to dismiss them as lunatics. If you assume they're sane, informed and intelligent, and you accept that THEY believe that they can succeed in rebuilding the Caliphate, what do YOU know that THEY don't?
Posted by: All-Seeing Eye at July 27, 2006 12:47 PM (c/4ax)
39
"The debate is--do they hate us because of who we are, or do they hate us because of what we do?"
That is not the debate, dear lost boy. There is no
difference between who we are and what we do. The debate is in your own
mind- are you you? Do you have a self, a base, a core? Or are you
so transcendentalist that you have vacated your self to the point that there is
no "you" remaining?
Your soul is clearly drifting away... is it lost forever?
Posted by: QC at July 27, 2006 12:48 PM (PX+vn)
40
JD,
Also, you state:
"What specific policies? Propping up Saudi and Egypt, for starters. Going around saying we believe in democracy while we are in bed with tyrants."
Yeah, Al Queda, hezbollah, etc., etc., really care about democracy. That is why they are so happy with what we are doing in Iraq. And why the left is as well. And why they respect Isreal so much. And why they hate Iran so much. Makes perfect sense when you put it like that. They care about democracy and we refuse to give them democracy.
And, why are they not fighting the tyrants? Why go after us instead of the tyrants they allegedly hate so much?
and,
"And you are WRONG about Hamas. They don't seek to restore a caliphate. Those bastards want to push the Israelis back into the sea. Equally evil, perhaps, but different."
- eh, birds of a feather. If they are ever successful with Isreal, they will turn their attention outward with the rest of the islamofascists. But, this does not dispute, even remotely, my larger point.
Again, why do you refuse to take the terrorists at their own words and instead produce elaborate nuanced historical reasons to excuse their behavior and blame america?
- GB
Also, you state:
"What specific policies? Propping up Saudi and Egypt, for starters. Going around saying we believe in democracy while we are in bed with tyrants."
Yeah, Al Queda, hezbollah, etc., etc., really care about democracy. That is why they are so happy with what we are doing in Iraq. And why the left is as well. And why they respect Isreal so much. And why they hate Iran so much. Makes perfect sense when you put it like that. They care about democracy and we refuse to give them democracy.
And, why are they not fighting the tyrants? Why go after us instead of the tyrants they allegedly hate so much?
and,
"And you are WRONG about Hamas. They don't seek to restore a caliphate. Those bastards want to push the Israelis back into the sea. Equally evil, perhaps, but different."
- eh, birds of a feather. If they are ever successful with Isreal, they will turn their attention outward with the rest of the islamofascists. But, this does not dispute, even remotely, my larger point.
Again, why do you refuse to take the terrorists at their own words and instead produce elaborate nuanced historical reasons to excuse their behavior and blame america?
- GB
Posted by: Great Banana at July 27, 2006 12:50 PM (JFj6P)
41
I take the terrorists at their word more than you do. If you read Osama's pronouncements, he says he has no problem with the US, he just wants muslim rights. He has three big beefs, if you believe what he says, as you encourage me to do (I don't, not fully).
1. Troops near Mecca/Medina
2. Support for Israel
3. Propping up Arab tyrants
Do I think he would stop at the borders of his new caliphate? He is not going to get to the new caliphate, and if he did, yeah, we'd kick his ass. Do I think he's crazy? Yeah, I think he's batshit insane. Don't you? Look what happened on 9-11--all he did was get us pissed off. True, we then fulfilled his greatest fantasy and invaded Iraq, but before that, we did the right thing and destroyed his little land of hatred in Afghanistan. He expected that Allah would make the battle much longer, like when the Soviets invaded. He's a religious fanatic whose grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
As for whether things are hopeless in Latin America--it's not my area of expertise, and I've only been there twice, but I'll say this: I don't think the Latin Americans have decided fully if they are Western or not. They have an elite group that runs things, usually between 2-10% of the population. Those people are nearly always of mostly European descent, and thus there is already a Western culture. They rebel against yankee imperialism, but not the entirety of Western influence. In the ME, it seems to be a total rejection.
Also, if you read Bernard Lewis, one other key difference comes out: the rapidity of the introduction of Western influence in the Muslim world. They went from 0 to 60mph faster than almost any body on the planet. They went from being arguably the most technologically advanced society on earth in 900-1300 to being our equal 13--1500, to being the joke of the world. Without oil, they'd be an economic GNAT. Their educational system is pathetic, etc. Aside from Mahfouz, they've had no globally influential artists. Compare all of those indicators to Latin America, and you can start to sense why the ME might be seething with more rage than Latin America. At least, it makes sense to me.
1. Troops near Mecca/Medina
2. Support for Israel
3. Propping up Arab tyrants
Do I think he would stop at the borders of his new caliphate? He is not going to get to the new caliphate, and if he did, yeah, we'd kick his ass. Do I think he's crazy? Yeah, I think he's batshit insane. Don't you? Look what happened on 9-11--all he did was get us pissed off. True, we then fulfilled his greatest fantasy and invaded Iraq, but before that, we did the right thing and destroyed his little land of hatred in Afghanistan. He expected that Allah would make the battle much longer, like when the Soviets invaded. He's a religious fanatic whose grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
As for whether things are hopeless in Latin America--it's not my area of expertise, and I've only been there twice, but I'll say this: I don't think the Latin Americans have decided fully if they are Western or not. They have an elite group that runs things, usually between 2-10% of the population. Those people are nearly always of mostly European descent, and thus there is already a Western culture. They rebel against yankee imperialism, but not the entirety of Western influence. In the ME, it seems to be a total rejection.
Also, if you read Bernard Lewis, one other key difference comes out: the rapidity of the introduction of Western influence in the Muslim world. They went from 0 to 60mph faster than almost any body on the planet. They went from being arguably the most technologically advanced society on earth in 900-1300 to being our equal 13--1500, to being the joke of the world. Without oil, they'd be an economic GNAT. Their educational system is pathetic, etc. Aside from Mahfouz, they've had no globally influential artists. Compare all of those indicators to Latin America, and you can start to sense why the ME might be seething with more rage than Latin America. At least, it makes sense to me.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 01:10 PM (aqTJB)
42
Oh, and excellent point about the diversity contained within the phrase "they", Eye. It is an important subtlety that is often missed in our discussion of the Muslim world. Or even Muslim extremists. They don't all think alike, and they don't all like each other too much. Most of the time, they hate us more than they dislike each other, but it still matters that Islam is split between a majority Sunni faith and a minority Shi'ite sect. Throw in your sufis, alawites, ismaelis, druze, and yazidis....and you're really looking at a diverse group, although those sects don't seem to be particularly violent if memory serves. Sufis are kind of cool actually.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 01:12 PM (aqTJB)
43
Yep, leave it to jd to be incapable of taking a Penn and Teller script in the spirit in which it is meant. Next thing you know, everyone's arguing over every historical nuance, action and reaction. Who fought who and why. Who was mean and who was nice. Who was wrong and who was right. And down we go into that dark and dreary world of jd's where nothing seems to be good and right in the world.
Dude, it's PEN AND TELLER! Lighten up.
And you guys wonder why I don't came around so often anymore.
Dude, it's PEN AND TELLER! Lighten up.
And you guys wonder why I don't came around so often anymore.
Posted by: Oyster at July 27, 2006 01:25 PM (CeSpm)
44
And folks--Mossadegh wasn't a communist. He WAS a nationalist, but hell, so would I have been, were I Persian in 1950. The British basically acted like they owned Iranian oil. They refused to give more of the profit to Iran. So Mossadegh, after months of negotiations, said screw you, it's our country, and nationalized the oil industry. The brits threw on a blockade. Let's work through the math here: imagine if the US was a one industry country. Imagine that that one industry was run by one company, owned by a foreign country. Imagine that almost all of the profit was going to that nation, which was far wealthier than us, and we were pretty poor. I think we'd nationalize it.
Hell, Detroit autoworkers smashed Japanese cars with 1% of that provocation, we probably wouldn't have waited as long as Mossadegh did.
So yeah, going back decades, they have reasons for their hatred. We are for democracy--so long as someone we like gets elected.
Hell, Detroit autoworkers smashed Japanese cars with 1% of that provocation, we probably wouldn't have waited as long as Mossadegh did.
So yeah, going back decades, they have reasons for their hatred. We are for democracy--so long as someone we like gets elected.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 01:25 PM (aqTJB)
45
It's not so dark and dreary down here, Oyster. And I think Penn and Teller are just as informed about world politics as Barbra Streisand is. I know how people here rail against entertainment figures mouthing off about politics. I like Penn and Teller as entertainers. I just think that saying that they hate us because of who we are is not accurate. I'm sorry if the way I express that disagreement with dark and dreary facts and history distresses you. If I'm wrong, show me where. Look back at how this started. I said they don't hate us for who we are but what we do. Someone said, Mossadegh was a communist. He wasn't. Not even close. I end the day much more informed about Iranian history than I began it. I enjoy learning. I can't tell where the conversation is going to go, but it often goes to places I need to know more about. Claims are made, and sometimes they are accurate and sometimes not. That's something I enjoy.
And for the record, Oyster--I only comment on about 1 in 7 posts here. If you aren't coming around often, you really shouldn't blame it on me.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 01:41 PM (aqTJB)
46
I totally agree with P@T...
Donald Trumps idea of an almost identical twin towers [but slighty bigger] is by far the best option I have seen so far.The "freedom tower" is exactly the same as many buildings being thrown up in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and the rest of the middle east.
If the so called "freedom tower" is built, it would symbolise and signal an undoubted victory for and to the islamofascists...something for them to be proud of.
It would also remind New Yorkers and the rest of the civilised world, that everytime they look at this lump of sharp broken glass [the "freedom tower"],of what used to be there, but is not anymore...
Donald Trumps idea of an almost identical twin towers [but slighty bigger] is by far the best option I have seen so far.The "freedom tower" is exactly the same as many buildings being thrown up in Dubai, Abu Dhabi and the rest of the middle east.
If the so called "freedom tower" is built, it would symbolise and signal an undoubted victory for and to the islamofascists...something for them to be proud of.
It would also remind New Yorkers and the rest of the civilised world, that everytime they look at this lump of sharp broken glass [the "freedom tower"],of what used to be there, but is not anymore...
Posted by: briantib at July 27, 2006 01:53 PM (n2sxj)
47
JD,
Your own arguments are internally contradictory. All I get from what you write is that you hate america and want to appease terrorists. Let's look at what we did 50 years ago, blah, blah, blah. Let's look at what the terrorsts have done for the last 50 years - even if they claim we did something wrong, they are entirely to blame for their own circumstances. There would be peace and prosperity in "palestine" were it not for Hamas, et al. Things would be better in Iran were it not for the Mullahs.
Anyway, What is your answer - that we let them destroy isreal and kill all the jews and then withdraw all of our military in the region and give them spain (which they quite clearly claim - today, is part of the Caliphate)? And, by the way, it does not matter whether or not they are likely to succeed ultimately in restoring the caliphate idiot - we are talking about what motivates them to kill women and babies. You snidely comment that they are unlikely to succeed, as if this is somehow a point in the argument. First, why aren't they likely to succeed - b/c people like you are willing to oppose them? Hardly.
You point out all of the socio / economic problems in the ME. Fine, why don't they rage against their leaders, who keep them w/ bad education, etc., etc.? Paticularly when these countries are generally swimming in $$ from oil? Blaming the US for this is ridiculous, both for you to do it and for them to do it. And, poverty, no education, etc. sounds like Mexico to me. Why no suicide bombers from Mexico? Or rural hindu India?
They hate us for proping up the Sauds. So, why don't they go after the Sauds? They are more likely to defeat america? And Egypt? What specifically have we done to keep Mubarak in power? We give Egypt $$, which I wish we did not, but I hardly think we brought him to power or keeps him there. And, when has any islamofascist ever claimed this was a motivator? Ever? Plus, we give money to tons of other countries. Where are the suicide bombers from those countries? Nothing in your argument makes any sense.
Moreover, You are wrong as to what you claim OBL's and Al Queda's stated goals are. The stated goals are the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the establishment of Sharia throughout the Caliphate and the exportation of islam throughout the world. Those things have nothing whatsoever to do with an Evil American foriegn policy, which you use to excuse and justify islamic terrorism and criticize american foreign policy. Yes, they hate american foreign policy to the extent that our presence keeps them from being able to achieve their objectives.
Although, for future reference, it is good to know that America will have your support when we blow stuff up every time we dislike another country's foriegn policy. Since, based on your own writings, that is perfectly acceptable and appropriate way to get country's to change their foriegn policy's.
You have changed your argument and moved the goalposts with every post - except one thing - you continue to blame america.
Why the hatred for America? What is the root cause of that?
Ultimately, I don't care if you are right. We, as a nation, are entitled to our foreign policy. And, we should be entitled to kill every terrorst, anywhere in the world. And, we should double down on the foriegn policy that "created" the terrorists as a way to demonstrate to the animals that they don't get what they want through terrorism. If you are right, and the real reason they blow up women and children is because they are mad that we backed up the Saud family, then we have a moral obligation to ensure that they do not get what they want by blowing up women and children. So, we should double our support for the Saud's and for Isreal to prove a point to them. Just like you don't pay ransome to terrorists b/c it will cause more kidnappings, you don't change your foreign policy for terrorists b/c it results in more terrorism. So any "root causes" we created should be immediately doubled down on.
So you see, even if you are right (which I think the facts are very heavily against you - mostly what the terrorists themselves say) about "root causes", it does not matter. Your answer is still wrong.
Your own arguments are internally contradictory. All I get from what you write is that you hate america and want to appease terrorists. Let's look at what we did 50 years ago, blah, blah, blah. Let's look at what the terrorsts have done for the last 50 years - even if they claim we did something wrong, they are entirely to blame for their own circumstances. There would be peace and prosperity in "palestine" were it not for Hamas, et al. Things would be better in Iran were it not for the Mullahs.
Anyway, What is your answer - that we let them destroy isreal and kill all the jews and then withdraw all of our military in the region and give them spain (which they quite clearly claim - today, is part of the Caliphate)? And, by the way, it does not matter whether or not they are likely to succeed ultimately in restoring the caliphate idiot - we are talking about what motivates them to kill women and babies. You snidely comment that they are unlikely to succeed, as if this is somehow a point in the argument. First, why aren't they likely to succeed - b/c people like you are willing to oppose them? Hardly.
You point out all of the socio / economic problems in the ME. Fine, why don't they rage against their leaders, who keep them w/ bad education, etc., etc.? Paticularly when these countries are generally swimming in $$ from oil? Blaming the US for this is ridiculous, both for you to do it and for them to do it. And, poverty, no education, etc. sounds like Mexico to me. Why no suicide bombers from Mexico? Or rural hindu India?
They hate us for proping up the Sauds. So, why don't they go after the Sauds? They are more likely to defeat america? And Egypt? What specifically have we done to keep Mubarak in power? We give Egypt $$, which I wish we did not, but I hardly think we brought him to power or keeps him there. And, when has any islamofascist ever claimed this was a motivator? Ever? Plus, we give money to tons of other countries. Where are the suicide bombers from those countries? Nothing in your argument makes any sense.
Moreover, You are wrong as to what you claim OBL's and Al Queda's stated goals are. The stated goals are the re-establishment of the Caliphate, the establishment of Sharia throughout the Caliphate and the exportation of islam throughout the world. Those things have nothing whatsoever to do with an Evil American foriegn policy, which you use to excuse and justify islamic terrorism and criticize american foreign policy. Yes, they hate american foreign policy to the extent that our presence keeps them from being able to achieve their objectives.
Although, for future reference, it is good to know that America will have your support when we blow stuff up every time we dislike another country's foriegn policy. Since, based on your own writings, that is perfectly acceptable and appropriate way to get country's to change their foriegn policy's.
You have changed your argument and moved the goalposts with every post - except one thing - you continue to blame america.
Why the hatred for America? What is the root cause of that?
Ultimately, I don't care if you are right. We, as a nation, are entitled to our foreign policy. And, we should be entitled to kill every terrorst, anywhere in the world. And, we should double down on the foriegn policy that "created" the terrorists as a way to demonstrate to the animals that they don't get what they want through terrorism. If you are right, and the real reason they blow up women and children is because they are mad that we backed up the Saud family, then we have a moral obligation to ensure that they do not get what they want by blowing up women and children. So, we should double our support for the Saud's and for Isreal to prove a point to them. Just like you don't pay ransome to terrorists b/c it will cause more kidnappings, you don't change your foreign policy for terrorists b/c it results in more terrorism. So any "root causes" we created should be immediately doubled down on.
So you see, even if you are right (which I think the facts are very heavily against you - mostly what the terrorists themselves say) about "root causes", it does not matter. Your answer is still wrong.
Posted by: Great Banana at July 27, 2006 02:42 PM (JFj6P)
48
GB--you seem to have a binary logic that you apply. I never said that I thought it was okay to blow things up when you disagree. I said just the opposite. I'm not trying to justify terrorism, I'm trying to understand it. It isn't that nuanced a position.
I don't hate this country. I love it intensely. Where do you see hatred? Criticism of aspects of our foreign policy is not hatred of America. Indeed, failure to criticize the country you love is false love and false patriotism.
I think I explained at length why Mexico might not have suicide bombers. But for another, lengthier explanation, I refer you to the Pope book. Another difference--actual occupation. American domination of Latin America has seldom involved actual occupation since 1950 (Dominican Republic in 65 a noted exception).
When has a terrorist attacked our support for corrupt Arab regimes? Have you read any of Zawahiri or Osama's speeches? They do that regularly.
And yes, I agree with you--if our only choices are the binary ones you establish--support Israel as we are today, or let the Jews be pushed into the sea in a second Holocaust, yes, I'll go along with the former, and reject the latter. But I don't think you have presented a complete choice set. Not even close.
"They are entirely to blame for their own situation." I dunno. I think it is a little more complicated than that. If we are discussing the Palestinians, I think other Arab nations have cynically exploited the Palestinians, and failed, for example, to resettle them. They exist in horrid refugee camps in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Syria (even in Baghdad, but they were treated better there, because there were fewer of them). I think the Palestinian leadership has been horrible, and until recently, it was a gang of thugs, unelected. Now it is elected thugs, with some others who are pretty good (Ashrawi, Shaath). I think it is also Israel's fault. The settlement policy meant an economic clampdown on the territories. It meant constant checkpoint humiliation and massive delays in transportation. And yes, I think we are partially to blame for Israel's settlement policy, even though 35 years of presidents BEGGED Israel not to do it. Only one president really stared down an Israeli PM on that issue, and it was george herbert walker bush in 1991. And shamir just outfoxed him.
So are the Palestinians, or the Arabs generally, entirely to blame for their own situation? I don't think so. Are we entirely to blame? Absolutely not. But we can do better. We are a great nation, but we are doing very poorly in that part of the world. Iraq is a catastrophe, but even aside from that we can do better.
I don't hate this country. I love it intensely. Where do you see hatred? Criticism of aspects of our foreign policy is not hatred of America. Indeed, failure to criticize the country you love is false love and false patriotism.
I think I explained at length why Mexico might not have suicide bombers. But for another, lengthier explanation, I refer you to the Pope book. Another difference--actual occupation. American domination of Latin America has seldom involved actual occupation since 1950 (Dominican Republic in 65 a noted exception).
When has a terrorist attacked our support for corrupt Arab regimes? Have you read any of Zawahiri or Osama's speeches? They do that regularly.
And yes, I agree with you--if our only choices are the binary ones you establish--support Israel as we are today, or let the Jews be pushed into the sea in a second Holocaust, yes, I'll go along with the former, and reject the latter. But I don't think you have presented a complete choice set. Not even close.
"They are entirely to blame for their own situation." I dunno. I think it is a little more complicated than that. If we are discussing the Palestinians, I think other Arab nations have cynically exploited the Palestinians, and failed, for example, to resettle them. They exist in horrid refugee camps in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Syria (even in Baghdad, but they were treated better there, because there were fewer of them). I think the Palestinian leadership has been horrible, and until recently, it was a gang of thugs, unelected. Now it is elected thugs, with some others who are pretty good (Ashrawi, Shaath). I think it is also Israel's fault. The settlement policy meant an economic clampdown on the territories. It meant constant checkpoint humiliation and massive delays in transportation. And yes, I think we are partially to blame for Israel's settlement policy, even though 35 years of presidents BEGGED Israel not to do it. Only one president really stared down an Israeli PM on that issue, and it was george herbert walker bush in 1991. And shamir just outfoxed him.
So are the Palestinians, or the Arabs generally, entirely to blame for their own situation? I don't think so. Are we entirely to blame? Absolutely not. But we can do better. We are a great nation, but we are doing very poorly in that part of the world. Iraq is a catastrophe, but even aside from that we can do better.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 03:20 PM (aqTJB)
49
Great Bananas, you asked when has any terrorist blamed
Osama, nov 04
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children....
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
from Zawahiri in Mar 05
Reform cannot be realized under the coercion of governments installed by the occupier, through fraudulent elections, administered under the supervision of the United Nations, and under the protection of B-52 bombers and the missiles of Apache planes [sic].
Zarqawi , April 6
As for you, O Arab rulers, you have accepted to be shoes for the supporters of falsehood and a base in the background from which planes of killing and destruction take off. You are still bases of supplies, logistics, and equipment. We tell you: Saddam has gone, unsung and unlamented. He was a tyrant and the enemy of God and of the messenger. He has gone at the hands of his US masters. You will go too. However, we pray God that you will go by our hands and our swords, and soon, God willing. God is omnipotent.
I wonder who will be the first to accuse me of propaganda on behalf of jihad? Please, I'm just answering his question--one of the main motives of Al Qaeda has always been their anger at our support for corrupt regimes, including Saddam (he was our butt boy for some time). That doesn't mean that I agree with Al Qaeda--but he was wise who said "understand your enemy." If we don't understand them, we will have a much tougher time killing and defeating them. We will never convince the current members of our goodness and therefore we must kill them. But wise US policies can make Al Qaeda less successful at recruitment and less popular in the Arab world.
Osama, nov 04
And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children....
This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.
from Zawahiri in Mar 05
Reform cannot be realized under the coercion of governments installed by the occupier, through fraudulent elections, administered under the supervision of the United Nations, and under the protection of B-52 bombers and the missiles of Apache planes [sic].
Zarqawi , April 6
As for you, O Arab rulers, you have accepted to be shoes for the supporters of falsehood and a base in the background from which planes of killing and destruction take off. You are still bases of supplies, logistics, and equipment. We tell you: Saddam has gone, unsung and unlamented. He was a tyrant and the enemy of God and of the messenger. He has gone at the hands of his US masters. You will go too. However, we pray God that you will go by our hands and our swords, and soon, God willing. God is omnipotent.
I wonder who will be the first to accuse me of propaganda on behalf of jihad? Please, I'm just answering his question--one of the main motives of Al Qaeda has always been their anger at our support for corrupt regimes, including Saddam (he was our butt boy for some time). That doesn't mean that I agree with Al Qaeda--but he was wise who said "understand your enemy." If we don't understand them, we will have a much tougher time killing and defeating them. We will never convince the current members of our goodness and therefore we must kill them. But wise US policies can make Al Qaeda less successful at recruitment and less popular in the Arab world.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 03:48 PM (aqTJB)
50
The new comment machine crams everything together, sorry. Dangerous when you are quoting murdering thugs like Zarqawi, Osama, and Zawahiri.
Basically, my point is this: several of you have asked why I don't take these guys at their word about their motives and goals. And the truth is, you don't have to read many of their speeches to realize that their motive is NOT anger at our freedom. As a matter of fact, both Osama and Zawahiri have laughed at that idea. Since long before 9-11 they are both on the record as saying they are pissed as hell about our support for corrupt regimes.
Has America propped up corrupt murdering regimes in Latin America? Oh, you betcha. (Guatemala in the 80s killed up to 200K of its own citizens by some estimates, and they were our buddies). Why no Latino suicide bombers? Again, read Pope. But short answer is--they aren't rebelling against the West itself as many of them are participants in Western culture, they aren't in a self-perceived manichean existential struggle with us, and we aren't down there in massive military installations. We are in the ME.
Also, it is tough to hide the bombs in those tight campesino outfits, whereas Arab robes....
Basically, my point is this: several of you have asked why I don't take these guys at their word about their motives and goals. And the truth is, you don't have to read many of their speeches to realize that their motive is NOT anger at our freedom. As a matter of fact, both Osama and Zawahiri have laughed at that idea. Since long before 9-11 they are both on the record as saying they are pissed as hell about our support for corrupt regimes.
Has America propped up corrupt murdering regimes in Latin America? Oh, you betcha. (Guatemala in the 80s killed up to 200K of its own citizens by some estimates, and they were our buddies). Why no Latino suicide bombers? Again, read Pope. But short answer is--they aren't rebelling against the West itself as many of them are participants in Western culture, they aren't in a self-perceived manichean existential struggle with us, and we aren't down there in massive military installations. We are in the ME.
Also, it is tough to hide the bombs in those tight campesino outfits, whereas Arab robes....
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 04:09 PM (aqTJB)
51
jd, typical liberal bullshit you learned in a liberal arts class in a liberal arts department of a liberal arts college of a liberal arts university.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 27, 2006 06:31 PM (rUyw4)
52
Uh, did you have a point you wanted to make? Next time you post something, someone should just say "typical conservative bullshit learned from a conservative talk radio blowhard". That apparently counts as refutation.
Fact is, the guy said that terrorists did not use our support for Arab regimes as a motive. He said I wasn't taking them at their word. Even conservative experts on terrorism point out the exacerbating factor of our affiliation with corrupt torturing regimes--even Paul Wolfowitz does.
For better or worse, the islamofascists don't hate us for who we are. They don't hate us because we are "free." They hate us because of what we do in their part of the world. Some of it is good and necessary and I support it. Some of it is wrong. And some if it unnecessarily provocative. We have to kill a lot of terrorists, and I support those actions. But we should also examine what we can change about our policies to not make MORE terrorists, more people who hate us who support terrorists.
For example, the war in Iraq. It's going from bad to worse, and even Bush admits it. We are sending more troops to Baghdad. We are on the verge of a civil war. The legacy of this stupid and immoral invasion will be a generation of hatred against us. All for nothing. All for stupidity. All for pride and vanity. All for poor planning and partisan gain. All for nothing. What a tragedy.
Or as Monty Python said "What a senseless waste of human life." Only this time, it isn't funny.
Fact is, the guy said that terrorists did not use our support for Arab regimes as a motive. He said I wasn't taking them at their word. Even conservative experts on terrorism point out the exacerbating factor of our affiliation with corrupt torturing regimes--even Paul Wolfowitz does.
For better or worse, the islamofascists don't hate us for who we are. They don't hate us because we are "free." They hate us because of what we do in their part of the world. Some of it is good and necessary and I support it. Some of it is wrong. And some if it unnecessarily provocative. We have to kill a lot of terrorists, and I support those actions. But we should also examine what we can change about our policies to not make MORE terrorists, more people who hate us who support terrorists.
For example, the war in Iraq. It's going from bad to worse, and even Bush admits it. We are sending more troops to Baghdad. We are on the verge of a civil war. The legacy of this stupid and immoral invasion will be a generation of hatred against us. All for nothing. All for stupidity. All for pride and vanity. All for poor planning and partisan gain. All for nothing. What a tragedy.
Or as Monty Python said "What a senseless waste of human life." Only this time, it isn't funny.
Posted by: jd at July 27, 2006 08:06 PM (DQYHA)
53
Relating to my previous post about how lefturds are sensing a change in the wind, I just watched the execrable Chris Matthews kissing Anne Coulter's ass on TV a while ago, though he pretended to try to rough her up a little. It sure wasn't "hardball", but rather more like "nerfball". I might wonder if they had trouble sleeping at night if I didn't already know they were opportunistic, bottom-feeding whores whose loyalties change with the seasons.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 27, 2006 08:36 PM (v3I+x)
54
I just watched the video again, and I noticed that the word muslim was never mentioned. Telling.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 28, 2006 10:26 AM (v3I+x)
55
jd,
So the Tudeh party and National Front party *weren't* Soviet-allied Communist parties? That is so very odd, especially in light of the KGB archives. And why oh WHY would the CIA plant fake Communists to put Mossadegh *back* in power when they wanted him out? Or assassinate a pro-US Prime Minister to place a pro-Soviet in his place?
As far as the "they don't hate us for what we are, but for what we do", well - please read a little Qatb, especially his "In the Shade of the Koran". The theological/ideological underpinnings of groups as seemingly-disparate as Hamas, al-Qaeda, and the fringe of the Islamic Broterhood *is* specifically based upon the conceptualization that any society that embraces a separation of church and state is inherently evil. So if you support a government with freedom of religion, bam! the leaders, rank and file, and supporters of the majority of Islamic terror organizations and many Islamic religious groups do, indeed, think you are inherently corrupt.
So the Tudeh party and National Front party *weren't* Soviet-allied Communist parties? That is so very odd, especially in light of the KGB archives. And why oh WHY would the CIA plant fake Communists to put Mossadegh *back* in power when they wanted him out? Or assassinate a pro-US Prime Minister to place a pro-Soviet in his place?
As far as the "they don't hate us for what we are, but for what we do", well - please read a little Qatb, especially his "In the Shade of the Koran". The theological/ideological underpinnings of groups as seemingly-disparate as Hamas, al-Qaeda, and the fringe of the Islamic Broterhood *is* specifically based upon the conceptualization that any society that embraces a separation of church and state is inherently evil. So if you support a government with freedom of religion, bam! the leaders, rank and file, and supporters of the majority of Islamic terror organizations and many Islamic religious groups do, indeed, think you are inherently corrupt.
Posted by: Deep Thought at July 28, 2006 10:49 AM (U2bNV)
56
uh, sorry, jd, just didn't have the time to go over your comment point by point. Family matters are robbing me of my internet time. Football practice, soccor camp, and tennis lessons for my kids. I'll try to do better next time.
Posted by: jesusland joe at July 28, 2006 10:51 AM (rUyw4)
57
"all for nothing, all for stupidity, all for pride, all..."
While I'll probaly be dismissed as one of those foolish "It's for oil" types...you have to consider that the ME holds 2/3 of the worlds know oil reserves. And Iran is second only to Russia in reserves of natural gas. Now...I won't conclude that our current military involvement isn't completely related to petroleum...but push the clock foreward a bit...to a time when the North Sea has depleated it's reserves, when the U.S. has depleted theirs (with or without ANWAR) with exponentially growing economies in India and China...and the last remaining large reserves found in the nations surrounding the Persian Gulf.
The day will come when having our military firmly entrenched in the ME will at least be preferrable to anyone else's. Well, for me that day is now. But in any case...when the whole thing comes crashing down (which may very well be in my lifetime---I'm 3
I personally consider it beneficial to be a member of the nation that is controlling it all. As opposed to, say, letting China have it.
If this war isn't primarily about oil...you can be damn sure the next one will be. And THAT one will last until the final drop is burned.
While I'll probaly be dismissed as one of those foolish "It's for oil" types...you have to consider that the ME holds 2/3 of the worlds know oil reserves. And Iran is second only to Russia in reserves of natural gas. Now...I won't conclude that our current military involvement isn't completely related to petroleum...but push the clock foreward a bit...to a time when the North Sea has depleated it's reserves, when the U.S. has depleted theirs (with or without ANWAR) with exponentially growing economies in India and China...and the last remaining large reserves found in the nations surrounding the Persian Gulf.
The day will come when having our military firmly entrenched in the ME will at least be preferrable to anyone else's. Well, for me that day is now. But in any case...when the whole thing comes crashing down (which may very well be in my lifetime---I'm 3
I personally consider it beneficial to be a member of the nation that is controlling it all. As opposed to, say, letting China have it.
If this war isn't primarily about oil...you can be damn sure the next one will be. And THAT one will last until the final drop is burned.
Posted by: KF at July 28, 2006 11:46 AM (IcdWu)
58
So what's going so wrong with the war in Iraq? The Shiites and Sunnis are doing the work for us taking out 60 of themselves daily, and with no pay! And what's wrong with creating more terrorists, so we can get them out in the open , find out who is who and give them a free ride to Allah?
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 28, 2006 01:31 PM (gLMre)
59
Joe--you have to get your priorities in line. Blog commenting comes FIRST, before family.
I think Tudeh was communist front, and the Nationalist Party something different. Why would the CIA plant fake commies in Iran? Because they wanted to destroy the alliance between the left parties and the islamic parties, which was a key part of Mossadegh's support. If you go the link, you'll see CIA documents talking about it. Pretty convincing.
As for Qatb: I've read some. He spent some time here, I believe. But even Qatb isn't calling for our destruction because of who we are. Surely you don't disagree with the quotes I gave, that state clearly that it is our policies that they are after. You asked me to take them at their word. I did. Now you ask me to take them at Qatb's word. At some point, you are going to concede that if we take them at their word, it is our policies in the region that they oppose.
As for oil--it can't get too expensive, from my perspective. Bring on the 6 dollar a gallon gas. That will unleash the enormous energy of American ingenuity. Thanks to our market economy and technological prowess, we are among the most adaptive economies in the world. We can handle an oil crisis, without killing hundreds of thousands in the ME. It will cause disruption and upheaval, and force many to conserve and to take their SUVs out in the backyard and blow them up. Couldn't happen to a stupider vehice. Can't wait for all the Hummer owners to go bankrupt.
I think Tudeh was communist front, and the Nationalist Party something different. Why would the CIA plant fake commies in Iran? Because they wanted to destroy the alliance between the left parties and the islamic parties, which was a key part of Mossadegh's support. If you go the link, you'll see CIA documents talking about it. Pretty convincing.
As for Qatb: I've read some. He spent some time here, I believe. But even Qatb isn't calling for our destruction because of who we are. Surely you don't disagree with the quotes I gave, that state clearly that it is our policies that they are after. You asked me to take them at their word. I did. Now you ask me to take them at Qatb's word. At some point, you are going to concede that if we take them at their word, it is our policies in the region that they oppose.
As for oil--it can't get too expensive, from my perspective. Bring on the 6 dollar a gallon gas. That will unleash the enormous energy of American ingenuity. Thanks to our market economy and technological prowess, we are among the most adaptive economies in the world. We can handle an oil crisis, without killing hundreds of thousands in the ME. It will cause disruption and upheaval, and force many to conserve and to take their SUVs out in the backyard and blow them up. Couldn't happen to a stupider vehice. Can't wait for all the Hummer owners to go bankrupt.
Posted by: jd at July 28, 2006 01:47 PM (aqTJB)
60
At least you can live in em cheap for a while and probably pretty sweet tunes going on ...
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 28, 2006 07:23 PM (gLMre)
July 23, 2006
Syria, Hizballah Decide They Want to Talk
Cross-posted from The Dread Pundit Bluto.
Hizbullah agreed to allow the Lebanese government to begin negotiations regarding kidnapped IDF soldiers, according to speaker of the Lebanese Parliament Nabih Berri on Sunday afternoon.Hizballah sponsor Syria wants to talk:
DAMASCUS (Reuters) - Syria is willing to engage in dialogue with the United States to solve the confrontation between Hizbollah and Israel, Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Meqdad said on Sunday.When a gang of international Islamist terrorists and one of their sponsor states decide they want to talk about a ceasefire with Israel, it can mean only one thing - they are being badly pummeled.
Syria, Hizballah, and Hizballah founder Iran probably expected the United States to rein in Israel before much actual damage had been done to Hizballah. Now, they have apparently become alarmed at the amount of punishment Israeli airstrikes, artillery, and ground troops have inflicted.
The time for talks will come when the baby-hunting maggots of Hizballah are as close to extermination as Israel can accomplish.
Posted by: Bluto at
09:23 AM
| Comments (17)
| Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 2 kb.
1
A ruse. Arabs have played this game for 60 years with Israel. They start a war, then when they're getting their asses handed to them they call for the world to save them. The world steps in, extracts terms from Israel, and the Arab aggressor goes home a hero and none the worse for wear. Then begin the processs again. It never fails.
No ceasefires this time. It only locks in the status quo, and that is a recipe for perpetual never-ending war. Let Israel finish them off this time and change the status quo. Only when one side surrenders will their be peace in the middle east.
No ceasefires this time. It only locks in the status quo, and that is a recipe for perpetual never-ending war. Let Israel finish them off this time and change the status quo. Only when one side surrenders will their be peace in the middle east.
Posted by: Jesusland Carlos at July 23, 2006 09:40 AM (8e/V4)
2
Yeah, Jesusland Carlos,
Muslims in general, and Arab Muslims in particular have no sense of right and wrong. They have no faculty of conscience; in place of it they have political expediency. In other words, these mother-f**ker only understand force.
On the other hand, I'd love to see the two kidnapped IDF personnel returned safely to their homes (unconditionally of course).
Muslims in general, and Arab Muslims in particular have no sense of right and wrong. They have no faculty of conscience; in place of it they have political expediency. In other words, these mother-f**ker only understand force.
On the other hand, I'd love to see the two kidnapped IDF personnel returned safely to their homes (unconditionally of course).
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at July 23, 2006 09:55 AM (Bp6wV)
3
I agree.
Pound them until signing of a treaty is a moot point.
(or at the very least, pound them until they can only sign with a bloody thumbprint... and if they had to dig their thumb out of a baggie in their pocket, so much the better)
Pound them until signing of a treaty is a moot point.
(or at the very least, pound them until they can only sign with a bloody thumbprint... and if they had to dig their thumb out of a baggie in their pocket, so much the better)
Posted by: Lonevoice at July 23, 2006 10:25 AM (QnxoD)
4
The war on Terrorism is being fought in many places. Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, Lebanon. The terrorist will be getting stretched. Of course Syria & Iran will want to talk. It stands to reason. I know who will run out of bullets first, it won't be the Yanks, UK, Israel.
Posted by: Gamblog Jon at July 23, 2006 10:28 AM (h6/4j)
5
Hizballah gave "permission"?
Posted by: Howie at July 23, 2006 10:35 AM (D3+20)
6
Carlos you have to have faith. I am confident the terrorists will finally give up in a few weeks and the three soldiers will be freed.
Posted by: George Ramos at July 23, 2006 10:44 AM (CnDtU)
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 23, 2006 11:08 AM (gLMre)
8
The best way to deal with a muslim is to toss his bullet-riddled corpse into a ditch and chuck some dirt on it to keep it from stinking up the place any more.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 23, 2006 11:23 AM (v3I+x)
9
I guess that works.
Posted by: George Ramos at July 23, 2006 11:34 AM (CnDtU)
10
I.M.: If you say that's the best way to deal with a Muslim terrorist, then I'd agree, but my dentist is a Muslim, and I don't think he's capable of doing his best work from a ditch.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 23, 2006 02:31 PM (vBK4C)
11
True Bluto; he's probably most useful sending part of his income, derived from your patronage, to support terrorism, which most muslims do. Yes, I meant to say most muslims support terrorism, and the few who do not explicitly support terrorism don't seem to have much interest in opposing it. Just think; every time you get your teeth cleaned, that's a contribution to the effort to kill innocent people. Good dhimmi.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at July 23, 2006 02:59 PM (v3I+x)
12
Actually, we already sent the local Islamist terrorist tax collector to prison, Rafil Dhafir. Every Muslim organization in the area has been pretty thoroughly investigated.
I'm not yet convinced that every Muslim is a terrorist or terrorist contributor. Besides, my dentist looks and sounds exactly like Andy Kaufman doing Latka. It's hard to imagine Andy Kaufman singing, "Here I come to kill de Jooos...", but then again, maybe it's just a clever subterfuge, and he's actually a Kaufman clone, vanguard of an army of Andy Kaufman clones bent on worldwide Jihad.
I'm not yet convinced that every Muslim is a terrorist or terrorist contributor. Besides, my dentist looks and sounds exactly like Andy Kaufman doing Latka. It's hard to imagine Andy Kaufman singing, "Here I come to kill de Jooos...", but then again, maybe it's just a clever subterfuge, and he's actually a Kaufman clone, vanguard of an army of Andy Kaufman clones bent on worldwide Jihad.
Posted by: The Dread Pundit Bluto at July 23, 2006 03:13 PM (vBK4C)
13
Not every Muslim is a terrorist. That's like saying every Black man is a gangbanger crackhead.
Posted by: George Ramos at July 23, 2006 03:43 PM (CnDtU)
14
I would keep an eye on my gold fillings, Dread. And I would certainly not go under anethesia. Muslims by definition are all terrorists. Either they haven't read their holy book or they are hypocrits!
What's wrong with finding another dentist? I was once indifferent to muslims but in light of current events I have developed a deep aversion to them and anything arabic. I wince whenever I see arabic writing!
What's wrong with finding another dentist? I was once indifferent to muslims but in light of current events I have developed a deep aversion to them and anything arabic. I wince whenever I see arabic writing!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 23, 2006 09:21 PM (gLMre)
15
We should carefully consider the conditions necessary for the establishment of a dialogue to bring peace to this troubled region. Forming a commission of all the involved parties to thoroughly review the issues, all of them, in order to ensure a comprehensive solution, followed by detailed planning and careful engagement, taking into account the views of all interested parties, will allow us to come to a cease fire as soon as it is practical. Further, such efforts will undoubtedly involve secondary issues such as who sponsors Hizb'allah and what issues might arise from that sponsor's other activities, which would have to be resolved as well to ensure that we do not stray immediately from the path of peace we can surely all agree we want.
Given these requirements, certainly we will be able to come to some reasonable agreement in no more than 18 to 24 months, bringing about a just cease fire and sparing the lives of the poor innocents caught up in this terrible war.
Given these requirements, certainly we will be able to come to some reasonable agreement in no more than 18 to 24 months, bringing about a just cease fire and sparing the lives of the poor innocents caught up in this terrible war.
Posted by: Jeff Medcalf at July 23, 2006 09:37 PM (7Q2cA)
16
Hogwash!
Posted by: Last gasp Larry at July 24, 2006 12:19 PM (gLMre)
17
How many more years do we have to talk before the light finally comes on?!
Posted by: pivalleygirl at July 26, 2006 04:01 AM (BQRI6)
137kb generated in CPU 0.0351, elapsed 0.0773 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0504 seconds, 292 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0504 seconds, 292 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
