It's all so clear now. My lack of knowledge regarding the Middle East is why Palestinians kill Jewish children on buses.

When Arabs take responsibilty for their cesspool chunk of real estate, maybe then they will see some solutions to their problems.

Yasser Arafat is a terrorist, no matter how many Arabs will lie and apologize for him, no matter who is aware or not aware of it.

This Saudi guy must be listening to AM talk radio here. Cant he tune in to KPFA and get some balance? They strike me as a pro-arab liberal station. Whine, whine, whine. What about all the media bias that I see in the other direction? Does he dismiss that?

"US public ignorance about the region is at the root of the Middle East’s problems. It has to be countered."

Oh yes. The real problem is rather that the US realizes very well how the region works: radical islamists have turned the well-perceived arab and moslem world of 100 years ago into a violent, intolerant, murdereous thing, exposing a kind of "eternal weakness" by exposing their jealeousy against all Jews in the world. We should not have been exposing jealeousy and hatred, and we should not have been accepted it in our moslem schools in the first place.

We've lost all our credibility, thanks to Hamas, Islamic Jihad and all the other idiots who do not care if they increase poverty among their own moslem people, just like the moslem country leaders did before them. They are thinking hatred - that's the problem. And the US is not "ignorant" at all about this middle east problem. THAT hast to be countered, I would tell to mister wiseman number 64773377who posted that article. All that foolish idiotry, theories taken from the 7th century and revamped for the sake of radical jihadism. Sigh.

My question would be - Why SHOULD I read the rest? The last paragraph said everything it needed to say. This is THE very same crap they've been feeding media for any number of years, and with a few turns of the phrases, could be coming from the lips of OBL. Yup. I'm one naive couchpotato alright...

Perhaps the anti-Saudi, anti-Muslim current running thru our public ignorance if Saudis and Muslims would condemn and quit funding the Saudis and Muslims who flew into our buildings, the Saudis and Muslims sabotaging Iraq, the Saudis and Muslims chanting "Death to Zionist America" or whatever we are today. Our newspapers report on Muslim killing and mayhem in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Indonesia, the Philippines, Malaysia, India, Chechnya, etc. every single day.

Please, Saudis and Muslims, help me with my ignorance. Prohibit the gathering of news.

How could the writer fail to mention that the people who WERE behind the Sept. 11 attacks were Saudis? The problem is, of course, that Islam very explicitly endorses a lot of hate and killing.

Academics Urge Ba'athists to End Cycle of Violence


Hussein supporters asked to understand "root causes" of American attacks.


In the wake of the attack earlier this week that left Uday and Qusay Hussein dead, many in America's academic community came forward to encourage the remaining supporters of Saddam Hussein to "look past their anger" and try to discover the "root causes" of the American attack. Said Middle East correspondent and professional idiotarian Robert Fisk, "While it might be tempting for Saddam's supporters to lash out at the west, they would be better served by trying to understand why they are so hated throughout the world, including in their own country."

Fisk went on to suggest that invading Kuwait and supporting terrorists around the world had done much to draw the ire of the west, and that the best course of action would be to try to understand American culture. A leading Berkley professor suggested that Ba'ath party members should "spend time learning about Americans, Western Culture, and maybe every try a cheeseburger or maybe listening to some pop music."

Said Fisk, "The temptation will be for the Ba'athists to strike back, but violence only begets more violence. You can't judge an American until you've walked a mile in his Nikes."

The response to this sort of gibberish on the Lemon

sorry jewels. i don't know if you were employing sarcasm or not, but your if many of our enemies in the Islamic world were more reasonable, they would probably take such a course of action. it's amazing how logical that actually sounds.

"spend time learning about Americans, Western Culture, and maybe every try a cheeseburger or maybe listening to some pop music."

shrugs it worked for the Russians.

I'm sure Arabs would love to 'take responsibility for their cesspool chunk of real estate'. However, since oil was discovered in the Middle East the partition and administration of the territories has had more Western involvement than most Arabs would like. We, i.e. the West, have been bombing Arab villages to quell unrest due to our occupation since the development of air power. Why did Iraq succumb to a nationalist government in the 1950s? Decades of British occupation. Fundamentalism is a direct result of the installation of compliant, puppet regimes e.g The Shah. jordanianboy is right that extreme groups are thinking hatred. If the US had experienced a century of military meddling by foreign powers eager for cheap access its natural resources there would be a similar or probably greater reaction. The best way to stop Arabs killing Americans is to stop Americans killing Arabs. Anyone have a better plan? Or is the loss of hundreds of patriotic US service personnel per year acceptable until the oil runs out?

Organized religion is at the root of the Middle East’s problems.
Live and let live.

jordanianboy asserts:
'the US realizes very well how the region works: radical islamists have turned the well-perceived arab and moslem world of 100 years ago into a violent, intolerant, murdereous thing'

Ain't it coincidental that radical Islamism turned against the West precisely at the moment the West started exploiting Middle Eastern oil reserves.

Many of those who now argue for the quellng of the Arab upstarts today are born of families who made their fortunes with domestic oil discoveries. I offer the name Bush. Sure, Bush the lesser is a failed oilman, bailed out ironically by Arab investors. The bin Laden family invested in GWB's first failed company Arbusto Energy. Do you think the cabal of oil millionaires who now dictate American foreign and domestic policy would have taken kindly to Arab influence over how these domestic gushing bilions of black gold were distributed back when their dynasties were raking in the dollars throughout the 20th century? I suggest an Arab invasion on political grounds to serve US citizens better would have been given short, nay violent shrift.

But hey, they're only towelheads. They know no better.

and gijoe :"Organized religion is at the root of the Middle East?s problems.
Live and let live."

The death toll is now in its thousands. (Accurate figures welcome). I count 4000 minimum since the beginning of the Iraq invasion. Praise the lord for committed Christian GWB and his unChristian war.

dirk I'm going to stop short of calling you 'misinformed'. Brush up on your history. Replace the number 100 with 1400. That would be years, dirk. Revisit and re-do after you study some, please. Until then, your argument is falling on deaf ears.

///Ain't it coincidental that radical Islamism turned against the West precisely at the moment the West started exploiting Middle Eastern oil reserves.///

This is nonsense, of course. Especially because it betrays a poor understanding of the fanatic Muslim mind. If by the "West" you mean America, dirk, that might make your statement somewhat more accurate, but still wrong.

Radical Islamism has been present since about the year 700 AD (more or less) All you have to do is read ANYTHING written by anyone who lived somewhere bordering on an Islamic land. The only things that have changed in 1300 years are technology and the excuses used to attack "the infidels" And even some of those haven't changed.

I think it is not only unfortunate, but also dangerous that people think as you do, dirk. You ignore unpleasant realities by veiling them in political rhetoric; trying to find excuses for someone else's loathsome behavior, thus absolving them of responsibility for their own actions. Given what we face, this can only result in disaster for us all. Looking at the history of Islam, and specifically Islamic fundamentalism, only a fool would believe that we somehow "brought this on ourselves. " Open up your history book and debate this with me, if you wish. The reality is that those who would destroy your and my way of life do not, despite what they say, need excuses for their behavior. We are the latest in a long line of scapegoats, because we are "infidels". Read the Qur'an to find out what the definition of "infidel" is and what should be done with them. Some of what you have said has merit, but the partisan, ignorant, excuse-laden nonsense that you paired it with eclipses it entirely.

I also find it interesting that people who think as you do often accuse Bush of being incompetent, while at the same time attributing to him some of the most complex Machiavellian conspiracies that one could conceive. It boggles the mind.

johnnymozart,

i hope you misspoke with the phrase 'fanatic Muslim mind'. I hope you meant 'mind of a fanatic Muslim'. There is an important difference here. The vast majority of Muslims and Christians do not wish ill of their fellow man. I have Muslim friends, work colleagues and neighbours. Hardly any of them have made attempts on my life. Most of them would react badly, however, if I started shooting them or stealing their property. As, I imagine, would you.

'radical Islam has been present since its founding' - forgive the paraphrase. Yes, since it was persecuted since its founding, just as the Pilgrim Fathers were persecuted by Catholic tyrants and forced to endure an arduous and by no means certain passage across 3000 miles of ocean to obtain the freedom to live their lives according to their beliefs. People will do almost anything to defend their faith. In Britain, now a Protestant (ie religious observance optional) country Bonfire Night is celebrated on November 5th. This commemorates the burning at the stake of Guy Fawkes, a Catholic who attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament in the 17th century in order to remove the now Protestant monarchy and Parliament. A look at the history of any nation results in the response "They actually did that?!" Yes, the Moors dominated Spain for centuries, the influence of Islam has waxed and waned over the Middle East and surrounding territories since its inception, but you cannot compare Islamic imperialism with the Romans, the Mongols, Britain or the US. Are there camels at the gates of 1600 Penn Ave? No, but there are tanks in Baghdad and on the soil of Arabia. Also, the US is a little over 200 years old. Criticising pre-18th century Islam is indignation by proxy. Would you care to defend US policy with respect to Native Americans 1776-1900AD?. Economic warfare at its most efficient, and in a democracy, dontcha know. I'd say snuffing out an entire race for material gain is loathsome activity, even if it consisted of merely cullung a species to extinction

I don't seek to absolve anyone of loathsome behaviour. I merely point out that the US and other Western nations are targeted by Muslim extremists due to their activity in the Middle East

johnnymozart, i appreciate your statement 'Some of what you have said has merit', but please point out what you consider nonsense. The central point of my posts is that imperialism begets fundamentalism, and imperialism therefore begets terrorism. In the absence of imperialism, there would be no need for a war on terror. Leave the Muslim world alone, and I think it will leave you alone.

Also, I have never accused GWB of incompetence. I will argue, however, that he would not be President if he was George Smith, failed oilman.
He would have found it more difficult to avoid serving in Vietnam, his hapless oil ventures would not have been bailed out by Bush Sr's buddies (including the bin Laden family), he wouldn't have become a multi-millionaire with Texan tax-payers dollars due to his 'Robin Hood in reverse' ballpark venture and he wouldn't have become Governor of Texas against a popular and politically savvy incumbent. I will grant that since defeating Ann Richards he has played a good game, but given his vast advantages who wouldn't have?

Oh and Cap'n Spin. Does pedagogy run in the family? Sorry, you mention you are deaf. DOES PEDAGOGY RUN IN THE FAMILY?

Dirk,

I will apologize in advance for the length. Thanks for the reasoned response. I disagree with a number of things that you said and I think the literature supports me on this. But let me first clarify one term: "fanatic Muslim" mind, as opposed to fanatic "Muslim mind" My comment should perhaps been phrased the former or as you describe.

There, that should clear up things a bit.

///I have Muslim friends, work colleagues and neighbours. Hardly any of them have made attempts on my life.///

I'll bet this was a mistake, Dirk, so I had to laugh. Hardly any?!? How many attempts on your life is too many? :) You're proving my point for me!! :)But the point is taken. I, too, have friends and colleagues who are Muslim and I was not in any way trying to include all Muslims in this. But the point remains: Your previous post and your subsequent comments fail to recognize that the inherent problem with Islamic society today is its failure to modernize, and what that failure means for a people in today's global society, rather than with imperialism. I could agree that imperialism can, and I emphasize the word CAN, exacerbate the problem, but I don't think that is the primary issue here.

Your next paragraph is mostly demonstrably false. If anyone was persecuted, it was the other way around. Once Muslims took control of Mecca and Yathrib (Medina), the empire began. Persecuted since its inception?!? By whom?? They were the largest, most scientifically and culturally advanced civilization of that era, including European Christendom. Find me evidence that the Ottoman Empire was "persecuted." Given this information, the comparison to the pilgrims is silly, at best.

///Yes, the Moors dominated Spain for centuries///

...and the Tatars in Russia, and they dominated the Viennese and the moghuls in India, the Persians...etc. You're proving my point for me here. They were an extremely powerful civilization, the pinnacle of that era's power, in fact. They fought wars on every side. Wars they provoked in most cases, I might add. You comment on the Moors' domination of Spain. Don't forget that this is one of the reasons for the Crusades, not the other way around. Pope Urban II figured, erroneously, that if "holy war" worked for Islam, it should work for Christianity. The Crusades were tragic and wrong, but a common misconception is that it occured in a vacuum. No, it didn't. The Jihad had been going on for hundreds of years by that time. And what we see then is similar to what's happening now.

///but you cannot compare Islamic imperialism with the Romans, the Mongols, Britain or the US///

Now see, this is where I think things are nonsensical. Of course you can make that comparison. People were forcibly converted to Islam, or forced to pay the jizyah (a 70-90% tax) or killed. They were fighting wars for a thousand years on every side against the "infidels". Julius Caesar is quoted as saying, (paraphrased) "Only a fool fights a war on two fronts, and only the heir to the throne of the king of fools fights a war on multiple fronts." Yet that is what they did, and they were largely successful. It wasn't until Western Christendom started to overtake them culturally and scientifically (and there are a number of reasons for this) that the Muslims were able to be turned back, otherwise there would be camels not only in Washington, but also London and Moscow as well.

///Criticising pre-18th century Islam is indignation by proxy.///

But aren't you using a similar argument by suggesting that Islam has been historically persecuted? We hear the same things today that have been said for the last thousand years. The difference between Rome and Islam is that radical Islam is imperialism supported by religion. Rome was not. Listen to the mullahs and what they say. You'll actually hear very few of them talk about Palestine. Rather, you will hear that Islam should dominate the world because it is Islam and that is it's rightful place. Read what Ayatollah Khomeini said and wrote. That kind of thinking isn't a result of American (et al) imperialism. Rather it is the other way round. Current American policy is a result of radical Islamist imperial thinking.

/// Would you care to defend US policy with respect to Native Americans 1776-1900AD?. ///

I covered this at great length with Grim and Max on the Iraq page about 3/4 way down. Posts- 78 (i think) Its a good read, from all sides, I think. I won't respond to this other than to say that I AM a Native American.

////I don't seek to absolve anyone of loathsome behaviour. I merely point out that the US and other Western nations are targeted by Muslim extremists due to their activity in the Middle East////

But by ignoring the realities of what has led the Islamic world to the point it has reached and seeking excuses for their behavior by finding scapegoats, (us) you do, intentionally or unintentionally, absolve them. I do not ignore that I think there a number of foreign policy failures in the US which can be lain at the feet of many, many Presidents. But those do not explain why Germany has produced more cultural literature in the last 3 years than the combined Muslim world has in the last 400. (Source: The Political Language of Islam By Bernard Lewis) It does not explain why social rights for people in Islamic countries are the lowest in the world. It does not explain why they have the lowest industrial base or the worst human rights records in the world. Palestine does not explain why women's rights and education in Indonesia and Pakistan has dropped significantly with increasing radical Muslim dominance. None of the reasons you give explain why the preeminent culture of one thousand years ago is now a backward, directionless, rage filled society today. The root cause of the reasons I describe above need to be addressed, and they will not disappear even if we dropped out of the Middle East tomorrow, and it is naive to think they would. What needs to be asked is "What went wrong?" and instead the Muslim world is asking "Who did this to us?" and we are the flavor of the month. And that is why I find this statement:

///In the absence of imperialism, there would be no need for a war on terror. Leave the Muslim world alone, and I think it will leave you alone.///

..to be nonsense.

If I put words in your mouth regarding the President, I apologize, but it seems apparent that you are spouting stereotyped rhetoric about the President, that is not only unfair and unproven, but also inflammatory. I don't care what you think of the guy's policies, but I've known a lot of Harvard and Yale bluebloods, and they may have had a silver spoon, but they were no dummies. I find it unfair to take away all the man's achievements because of partisan disagreement, just as I think it was unfair to attribute Clinton's or Clark's Rhodes scholarships to anything other than intelligence.

Anyway, I appreciated your civil response. I hope you get a chance to read this.

Dirk,
The thread I refer to is the " Arab rulers leery of new iraq model." on the Iraq page. Almost the whole way down. 78 posts.

Ah yes, the Ottoman empire. If you're going to dominate a people its only fair to provide them with comfortable seating.

Some good points johnnymozart. I readily agree that empires aren't built with stern looks and strong language. Islam has not aged well, and modern Islamic governments tend not to be stable. But your assertion in the thread you mentioned

///Show me a time when the US has colonized anyone in the last 100 years, Grim. There's no empire.///

is disingenuous. There is an American empire but not in the traditional political/religious sense, it is economic and cullural. America's power is huge, and depends to a great degree on outsourced manufacturing and the exploitation of natural resources. Sweatshops and refineries. Backed up by irresistible military might. If a ruler isn't playing ball and is sitting on vast oil reserves, he gets invaded. The number of countries invaded by America is larger than the number that have invaded it, which is currently zero.

You are right that Islam has not developed as successfully as more pragmatic ie effectively secular socities. Religion is anti-science. Even as we type US schoolchildren are being taught creationism. Islamic justice is often to Western sensibilities crude or brutal, but the US is one of only a few nations that executes children. I think that's a bit "do as i say, not as I do". I agree that the principle of Islamic supremacy informs the thoughts and deeds of the mullahs. Successful religions have such mechanisms; its why they succeed. Catholicism uses original sin (what a hellish concept. A newborn child dies in infancy and is eternally damned due to the sin of a woman. Right on) and the intolerance of contraception to get 'em young and make sure there are plenty of 'em. It doesn't matter how impoverished or miserable their existence - the next life will be better. Come and worship. All organised religions are instruments used to structure and order society, men first, women second, wipe yer feet and wash behind yer ears. Religious societies are an outdated notion and will consequently struggle in the modern world. However, that struggle is a matter for their own people. If educating the savage is the basis for US policy then come right out and say it, don't dress it up with spurious claims of WMDs. If Islamic fundamentalists attack Western targets unable to cite Western imperialism as their motivation, then by all means, give 'em hell. Unprovoked aggression deserves an effective response. The reality is that Islamic terrorists depend on US meddling in their homelands. That is why they exist. I don't believe US embassies would be bombed and the WTC destroyed if the US got the hell out of Dodge.

///What needs to be asked is "What went wrong?" and instead the Muslim world is asking "Who did this to us?" and we are the flavor of the month.///

The key here is 'this'. Unfortunately, the 'this' is Western imperial involvement in the Middle East. Drawing borders, selling arms, bombing towns and villages. Arab nations consider the US the flavour of the month, year, century because they taste the cold steel of a society that needs that oil to keep flowing. The root causes of the problems in Islamic nations do need to be addressed, but by their own citizens. That is their right and their responsibility. Many people from other nations can and indeed do critcise US domestic and foreign policy, but meddling or forcing the issue is not their right. If European objections to US protectionism were backed up with force would Americans respond in kind? The answer is yes. Violence begets violence. Neo-cons argue that democracy needs to flower in the Middle East to stabilise the region, but are less concerned at democracy wilting in the US.

You mention in the 'Arab rulers leery..' thread
///Representative government works///
That's true. Unfortunately, the US is no longer a democracy. The founding of America was a milestone in the empowerment of humanity. The irony is it was a reaction to corporatist exploitation of the colonists by the East India Co.. You're undoubtedly better informed on US history than I, so I won't expound. The current administration is born of and supported by 1% of the US population and its policies - tax cuts for the rich, environmental deregulation and the invasion of Iraq - are for their benefit, and to the detriment of many more millions. Jefferson must be spinning in his grave, or maybe thinking "I knew I wasn't happy with that Supreme Court thing. Damn". So here we are, 200 odd years later and the brave American democratic experiment has reverted to the corporatist government model that was the cause of its inception. I can't decide which is sadder, the fact that the US President is an anointed prince from an entrenched dynasty (cf George III), or that US citizens don't seem to be bothered that they have lost the basic and hard-fought for human right of democratic self-determination. This isn't a party issue, it is absolutely fundamental. Rep, Dem, Whig, Federalist, whatever. Bush shouldn't have had an inauguration, rather a coronation.

///Current American policy is a result of radical Islamist imperial thinking.///
No. This simply isn't true. Saddam was a dictator who did what all dictators do - he threw his weight around and clung to power, assisted for years and supplied with weapons by the US. He was decried as such by the rather more devout OBL. Current US policy is the single greatest catalyst for Islamic fundamentalism. The installation of the Shah in Iran is a case in point. Enforcing a secular nationalism was ultimately self-defeating. Result: bloody revolution and a fundamentalist Islamic republic. Dodgy analogy coming up, brace yourself: kick a dog enough times and he'll bite you. What to do with a dog that bites you - er, keep kicking him? That'll shut it up. If you want to see the future, imagine a GI's boot kicking an infinite number of dogs in the face, forever. The PNAC cabal is happy to have that dog biting. The Bush administration and those that fund it won't suffer, it will be grunts and civilians that are in the firing line. A permanent state of war plays well at the voting booth. Terrorism will never be defeated. The war on terror can never be won. How can it? What is the purpose of the war on terror? To kill all terrorists? How? I'd love to know if this war could be won. Enlighten me. If I knew the terms of victory over terrorism, I could stop believing that the war on terror is a facade for the defence of corporate economic interests and look forward to the happy day when terrorism is no more.
""Our only goal, our only option, is total victory in the war on terror, and this nation will press on to victory," Bush told the American Legion convention in St. Louis on Aug. 26". When is that victory likely, no, make that possible? A paradigm of duplicity. GWB speaks of an axis of evil. There is an axis of non-compliance with US economic objectives, I'll grant you. Evil? It's a subjective term. Tell me its not and I'll dismiss you like I dismiss all religious zealots.

With regard to GWB. Unfair and unproven no. Inflammatory perhaps. Achievements... whatever they may be, I maintain that GWB is nothing if he is not his father's son. So he raised hell when he was young. Most fellows do. But few of us have driven, while drunk, with our 15 year old brother in the car and dragged a neighbour's trash can into the family driveway and then threatened to go "mano a mano" with our irate father. Most of us haven't been arrested three times for such offences as drunk driving or rowdy behaviour. Most people haven't uncharacteristically spent a summer as an inner city youth counsellor (why was that? was that a quid pro quo? or is GWB just good-hearted?)
Bush has stated 'I want those young people who commit crimes to be held accountable for their actions; most 14 year-olds who commit violent crimes can now be tried as adults and sent to adult prison.' GWB's wild behaviour spanned 4 decades. Would that we all had such luxury.
GWBs 'business' dealings broke even at best, despite generous funding by Pappy's friends and those interested in currying favour with a Bush scion. GWB's oil ventures used every offshore tax break in the book and still merely broke even. GWB's financially rewarding baseball adventure was predicated on two things: the skimming off of millions of dollars of Texan sales taxes and the subsequent purchase of the Arlington stadium by Tom Hicks that funneled $15m into GWBs coffers. It was these millions, presumably, that paid for the ranch that was highlighted in GWB's election promotional film where GWB was filmed driving a jeep and informing the interested viewer that the most important quality of a presidential candidate was 'character'. Yeah that, Georgy, and a family name. GWB's single achievement is uniting the Republicans behind his candidacy How hard was that? His dad was head of the CIA. Whatever you say George.

Non-Americans disparage GWB for the same reason they held Quayle in contempt. Not due to their idiocy, which is a moot point, but due to their laziness and their arrogance. We've had our fill over here in Europe of lazy, aristocratic arrogance propped up by clever, Machiavellian courtiers. It sticks in the craw to see it prosper in the 'Land of Opportunity' Weren't you guys supposed to do it right? We did this whole 'droit de seignior', appointed by God bollocks for centuries. Here you go reverting to type. There is no promised land, just a bunch of guys with money and land trying to keep hold of it.. It was such a situation that forced the birth of a nation. Does noone care anymore? Is America extinct?

I agree with Johnnymozart. VERY well said.

It's not possible to replace the betterment and fulfilment of human life with stark ignorance and the stifling of the natural will of humans to expand and realise the completely natural urges of life itself. The fundamental Islamist is an ANATHEMA to all things normal in the human condition. All the terrorising in the universe will NEVER be able to suppress the will to live and prosper with self-autonomy. Neanderthals and radical Islamist have in common the inability to CHANGE, ADAPT and PROGRESS in an increasingly secular and enlightened geopolitical landscape. Everything the Islamofacists do fundamentally undermines their case, however tenuous and idiotic their case may be. You can always tell when an idea or a mindset is on the nose or STINKS when it reviles music, paintings and holds in bondage 50% of its own population i.e. the fairer sex and seems to revel in a pseudo HOMO EROTIC glorification of killing, war and so called Islamic brotherhood. In 10 to 50 years time the world will look back at this time as if it were a bad joke gone wrong. The current machinations of the Islamofacist are basically the last dying breath of a repressive, antiquated and fundamentally anti human mindset. Liberal democracies around the world are busy finding cures for diseases, cracking the intricacies of the human genome, working on Artificial Intelligence, putting Landers on Mars and developing better socioeconomic conditions for their people. Always progressing ever upwards and onwards, in a way becoming god. The Isalmofacist is stuck in a tiring 6th centaury time warp hash of SUPERSTITION and completely BASELESS and UNPRODUCTIVE NONSENSE. If the Islamofacist thought for a moment they would realise that they are as relevant today and in the future as a FART in a TORNADO. Our grand children will laugh heartily at the silly old Terrorists having a fit and blowing themselves up as they climb into their oil free powered cars and plan a holiday to the nudist beaches on the sunny shores of Saudi Arabia now renamed "Sandy Arabia". The local inhabitants of the Middle East will blush with embarrassment at their forebears behaviour as they tuck into a healthy breakfast of genetically modified Bacon and locally produced dry white spritzers. The Islamofacist is as dead as a Dodo and like all evolutionary dead ends will be consigned to where they belong..HISTORY.

Dirk,

I appreciate the lengthy and thoughtful response. Reading it is clear that we must agree to disagree. Although there are probably places where we agree (ie the state of our current democracy in comparison with traditional Jeffersonian type democracy--the decline of which, I might add, can be laid at the feet of both sides of the aisle), it is so hopelessly encumbered by things that are in error orfalse that it is difficult to know where to start.

Unfortunately, despite other inaccuracies, I'm afraid I only have time to respond to one issue. Regarding Islamic terrorism:

/// I don't believe US embassies would be bombed and the WTC destroyed if the US got the hell out of Dodge.///

I notice that you have picked and chosen what to argue and discarded any conflict your new post may have created with my previous argument, dirk. You merely repeated (althought more lengthily) what you said before, ignoring the questions that your statement raises. This is what I wrote:



///But those do not explain why Germany has produced more cultural literature in the last 3 years than the combined Muslim world has in the last 400. (Source: The Political Language of Islam By Bernard Lewis) It does not explain why social rights for people in Islamic countries are the lowest in the world. It does not explain why they have the lowest industrial base or the worst human rights records in the world. Palestine does not explain why women's rights and education in Indonesia and Pakistan has dropped significantly with increasing radical Muslim dominance. None of the reasons you give explain why the preeminent culture of one thousand years ago is now a backward, directionless, rage filled society today. The root cause of the reasons I describe above need to be addressed, and they will not disappear even if we dropped out of the Middle East tomorrow, and it is naive to think they would. What needs to be asked is "What went wrong?" and instead the Muslim world is asking "Who did this to us?" and we are the flavor of the month.///

You incorporate my last sentence into your post and miss the point of it, which is the reality of the questions I raised makes your above statement false. The best you could say is America is the match to the fuse, but as I stated before, I don't even believe that, because all you have to do is look back through history to see wars over similar perceived slights, perceptions and excuses given by Islamists. Substitute "America" or "Israel" for "Persian" "Spanish" "Sicilians" "Viennese" "Christians" and you'll see what I mean. The mirroring of things said today to what has been said before is staggering to say the least. A better analogy to your "dog" analogy would be if the dog was rabid, or had distemper. The point being that there is already something wrong with the dog. Your analogy allows current Islamic society to bear no responsibility for their actions. (Yes, I recall that you said it was dodgy) :)

Actually, I have some remaining time to address a couple of other things briefly:

Oil: We are not there to control the oil. If all we were interested in was cheap oil, and a bunch of money under the table, we could have just bought it from Saddam Hussein for a lot less than it cost, financially and politically, to go to war.

Unproven: dirk, it is the malignant intelligence behind what you are describing that is unfair and unproven, not the occurrence. Two different people, as you might imagine, can draw several very different conclusions from what you describe. Substitute some of the names with unknown, non-high profile names and give it to one of your friends and see if they reach the same conclusion you did. Unproven, meaning not proven. You used the word yourself----"presumably".

Tax cuts for the rich: (rolling eyes) dirk, I made less than thirty thousand dollars last year and I got a tax cut. Does that make me rich? Because if it does, there are some creditors I'd like you to speak to on my behalf.

Alcoholism: I'm not certain what you're saying here, nor other people who post similar things. All I can gather is that you think Bush is still an irresponsible alcoholic, and that he is not telling the truth when he said that when he became a Christian, he gave it up forever.

Maybe you disagree, dirk, I don't know. I think people can and do change. I happen to believe that he's telling the truth. And I judge what people are telling me for a living.

Catholicism: Although I have problems with certain things the Catholic Church teaches, I think what you posted above about the newborn is in error. If indeed, the Catholic Church is teaching this, then they are going against what Scripture itself says. If you are interested, I will find the references for you.

American Empire: I will remind you, dirk, the only land America has ever taken has been land to bury our dead. Some of what you say is accurate, and we agree that some American policy is wrong, but the implication I hear embedded in you concern is that somehow America is successful illicitly, that somehow all that has been achieved has been ill-gotten gains, which is again unfair. A rising tide raises all boats, not the other way around. America is not rich because everyone else is poor, but rather in spite of it, despite the screaming you hear from the left on both sides of the Atlantic.

Anyway, I've spent too long already. There are other problems I found. I would have liked to refute you in more detail, but perhaps another time. :)

dirk You need more than just American history, you need some unbiased religious history as well - You said All organised religions are instruments used to structure and order society, men first, women second, wipe yer feet and wash behind yer ears. You are in error. Catholicism recognizes no class as better or gender better than the other. It does recognize in the family that there can only be one head, but it is the Father's (Husband's) responsibility to fill that role of head of the family. That does not mean they are ordered except in responsibility. They are one by Divine precept. They share in the responsibility of raising children, each in their own way.

I love the claim that the US media has so demonized Saddam. I suppose that's why we're just learning that CNN suppressed stories about his atrocities so that they'd continue to gain access to Saddam. Thanks Mr. Jordan, dick.

A brute kills for pleasure. A fool kills from hate.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (Click here should you choose to sign out.)

As you post your comment, please mind our simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. We also ask that you avoid the extensive use of profanity, racist terms (neither of which we consider civil or respectful), and other boorish language.

We reserve the right to delete any comment, and to prohibit you from commenting on this site, if we feel you have broached this policy. As a courtesy, we will first send you an email noting a violation so you understand the boundaries. This will occur only once, however, and should we ban you from our comment forums we expect that ban to be permanent.

We also will frown upon those who suggest that we ban other individuals for voicing unpopular opinions, should those opinions be voiced in a civil and respectful manner. The point of our comment threads is to provide a forum for spirited though civil and respectful discourse … it is not to provide a forum in which everyone will agree with your point of view.

If you can live by these rules, welcome aboard. If not, then we’re sorry it didn’t work out, and thanks for visiting The Command Post.

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: