|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
but i have one serious question, if i may, of which i'm mostly interested in the liberal opinion (emphasized not to exclude the conservatives, but to underscore my belief that most from either side is nothing but sheer speculation)
if the current american administration is so diabolical, why not simply plant nuclear or chemical agents in iraq?
I don't really think the Bush administration is diabolic, but I have thought a bit about them planting WMDs in Iraq. It's probably because the international community (France, Germany) would figure out what we were doing. I think it's also possible we found WMD, but they were made in the U.S.A.
quote:
And as I've said repeatedly, it was like taking out Hitler in 1936, rather than waiting till September 1939, when he became a real threat.
I think that that is not only absurd, but unfounded.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
I have a question for anyone who wants to answer it: What do you think is motivating these Anti-Western Terrorists? Is it sanctions, the fear of US hegemony, jealousy, or Anti-American propaganda?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Causes of Muslim terrorism:
1) Jealousy,
2) scapegoatism,
3) fanatical ideology, to match that of the Nazi and Imperial Japanese belief that they were the chosen "master race", and that all others can be exterminated to serve their purpose.
4) Denial of the repressive inferiority of their own culture, that discourages economic development, as well as basic freedoms. They should be working to change their own culture, not externalizing blame on us, and trying to tear down our culture to the stone age, to match them.
5) a violent and unstable Muslim culture that is discouraging and threatening to those who would invest economically in the Middle East. When they're not trying to kill us (Americans, Europeans, and other non Muslims, or Muslims whose ideology they don't agree with), they're generally trying to kill each other.
6) The Arab media. No matter how beneficial or benevolent U.S. actions are, they are re-spun to be an outrage that warrants holy war on America.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
quote:
Oroginally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
but i have one serious question, if i may, of which i'm mostly interested in the liberal opinion (emphasized not to exclude the conservatives, but to underscore my belief that most from either side is nothing but sheer speculation)
if the current american administration is so diabolical, why not simply plant nuclear or chemical agents in iraq?
I don't really think the Bush administration is diabolic, but I have thought a bit about them planting WMDs in Iraq. It's probably because the international community (France, Germany) would figure out what we were doing. I think it's also possible we found WMD, but they were made in the U.S.A.
You don't believe your own government, but you're quick to believe such a wild scenario.
Based on WHAT can you speculate this kind of total crap?
There isn't a shred of evidence to support it.
quote:
quote:
originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And as I've said repeatedly, it was like taking out Hitler in 1936, rather than waiting till September 1939, when he became a real threat.
I think that that is not only absurd, but unfounded.
Based on what is it absurd and unfounded?
Your statement is unfounded, with nothing to back it up, other than to say "that's absurd and unfounded."
There is clear evidence that Saddam Hussein has previously pursued weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and the U.N showed mass stockpiles missing of VX, Sarin and Anthrax (as I've said repeatedly, and been ignored repeatedly). If Hussein had gotten his hands on nukes, then, Hitler-esque, he could take whatever he wanted, and no one could do anything about it.
You can believe what you want, but I don't see that your wild speculation has any basis.
Whereas my "absurd/unfounded" statements have quite a bit of basis in Saddam Hussein's past actions, U.N. sanctions based on these actions, and Hitler-like dominance of his own country, and profusely stated expansionist/imperial ambitions.
As as I've also said repeatedly elsewhere, defectors from high in Saddam's military have said, since 1995 onward, that Hussein has been pursuing WMD's, with a large part of his military devoted to pursing a secret WMD program, and hiding it from U.N. weapons inspectors.
The fact that those weapons haven't been found yet doesn't change the fact that they logically exist. And if Hussein had been given the time, he would have been as formidable with them as Hitler was in 1939.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
if the current american administration is so diabolical, why not simply plant nuclear or chemical agents in iraq?
Obviously you're not a fan of Ben Affleck movies.
WMDs have their own fingerprint. Its easy for weapons experts to trace their source, irrespective of whether they're biological, chemical or nuclear.
(Which makes it unbelievable that the FBI didn't know who posted the Anthrax letters... I wonder where that is up to now.)
I suppose the CIA could be very cunning and buy some Russian WMDs and plant them in Iraq. But...what if they were caught?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
I have a question for anyone who wants to answer it: What do you think is motivating these Anti-Western Terrorists? Is it sanctions, the fear of US hegemony, jealousy, or Anti-American propaganda?
First, there is an Islamic concept called the umma, which is the union or community of Islamic peoples. Many fanatical Muslims see Muslims in other places get harmed or oppressed, which compels them to become jihadis. This is probably overstated (the pan-Arabism dream died with Nasser, and Hamas says the invasion of Iraq is a problem for Iraqis), but it is important - see for example Turkey's refusal to help the US in the invasion of Iraq.
Second, many educated Muslims resent the fact that the United States and the West assert the paramount importance of freedom and democracy, but don't practice it abroad. Thus, the West militarily and politically supports the strict and intolerant Sunni regime of the Sauds in Saudi Arabia. The US arms Israel to fight Palestinians, who are seeking their own homeland in a struggle which many Arabs equate with the US War of Independence against Britain. And the US helped topple the democratically elected (but socialist) Iranian government and replaced it with the Shah, whose regime was very totalitarian.
Many Muslims see the US as unwilling to export democracy, when it is against the US's own interests. (There is a semi-respectable rationale for doing so, which I'll get to in a moment.) So, while they may admire the US for its domestic freedoms, they hate its foreign policy, and seek to oppose it.
Third, many strict Muslims see the spread of democracy as contrary to Islamic faith. Islam teaches that sovereignty cannot lie with the people (as it does in secular countries), but instead is sourced in God. Appointment of a sovereign ruler by popular election (by man, not God) is therefore intuitively contrary to the Koran.
(Note, however, that there is nothing specific within the Koran prohibiting democracy, and in fact the Koran is silent on how rulers should be elected. In Iran, as an example of how an Islamic state is run, the Council of Guardians overseas the elected parliament, and reviews legislation to ensure they comply with their conservative and strict interpretation of Islam. On the other hand, one school of thought says that a popular election reflects God's will. There is room to maneouvere on this for even strict Muslims.)
So, some Muslims believe that resisting change - subversive Western thought - will preserve Islam. Other Muslims see the West as a spiritual wasteland because of the empahsis on consuerism and capitalism, and wish to resist this happening in the Islamic world.
Finally, many supposedly "fundamentalist" or "Islamist" organisations deny that they are in fact fundamentalis, but say that this is a label cast upon them by their opponents (usually autocratic leaders in places like Egypt and Morocco). They say they are Muslims, but moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can co-exist with secular ideals. They say they are painted as an extremist enemy in order for the autocratic rulers to obtain US or Western assistance to oppress them.
An example of this is again Turkey, where the supposedly fundamentalist Islamist party recently came into power - and the fear of the imposition of sharia law has not happened. Another example: in 1991, Algeria cancelled its election because the secular government was sure to lose to an Islamic party in a fair and democratic election - the secular government gave as its reason for cancelling the election that the Islamists would not hand over power if they lost the next election. In other words, the secular government illegally retained power when it seemed likely they'd lose it.
The fear is that an Islamist state would arise on the basis of "one person, one vote, one time only" (which is one reason why the West supports such odious regimes as the Sauds - if there were elections there, anti-Western fundamentalist Wahabis would come to power.)
As for the "jealousy" issue.... I think there is some truth to this. It must certainly rankle the people who think they are of the chosen faith to be militarily and economically subordinate to Christians and Jews. I don't think its a major issue though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
quote:
Based on what is it absurd and unfounded?
Your statement is unfounded, with nothing to back it up, other than to say "that's absurd and unfounded."
There is clear evidence that Saddam Hussein has previously pursued weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical and biological) and the U.N showed mass stockpiles missing of VX, Sarin and Anthrax (as I've said repeatedly, and been ignored repeatedly). If Hussein had gotten his hands on nukes, then, Hitler-esque, he could take whatever he wanted, and no one could do anything about it.
You can believe what you want, but I don't see that your wild speculation has any basis.
Whereas my "absurd/unfounded" statements have quite a bit of basis in Saddam Hussein's past actions, U.N. sanctions based on these actions, and Hitler-like dominance of his own country.
Comparing Hussein to Hitler is just insane. Saddam Hussein isn't even on the same scale as Hitler when it comes to dictators. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but comparing him to Hitler is the worst comparison since PETA compared the Holocaust to meat production.
quote:
I suppose the CIA could be very cunning and buy some Russian WMDs and plant them in Iraq. But...what if they were caught?
The Russians would probably figure it out.
quote:
First, there is an Islamic concept called the umma, which is the union or community of Islamic peoples. Many fanatical Muslims see Muslims in other places get harmed or oppressed, which compels them to become jihadis. This is probably overstated (the pan-Arabism dream died with Nasser, and Hamas says the invasion of Iraq is a problem for Iraqis), but it is important - see for example Turkey's refusal to help the US in the invasion of Iraq.
Second, many educated Muslims resent the fact that the United States and the West assert the paramount importance of freedom and democracy, but don't practice it abroad. Thus, the West militarily and politically supports the strict and intolerant Sunni regime of the Sauds in Saudi Arabia. The US arms Israel to fight Palestinians, who are seeking their own homeland in a struggle which many Arabs equate with the US War of Independence against Britain. And the US helped topple the democratically elected (but socialist) Iranian government and replaced it with the Shah, whose regime was very totalitarian.
Many Muslims see the US as unwilling to export democracy, when it is against the US's own interests. (There is a semi-respectable rationale for doing so, which I'll get to in a moment.) So, while they may admire the US for its domestic freedoms, they hate its foreign policy, and seek to oppose it.
Third, many strict Muslims see the spread of democracy as contrary to Islamic faith. Islam teaches that sovereignty cannot lie with the people (as it does in secular countries), but instead is sourced in God. Appointment of a sovereign ruler by popular election (by man, not God) is therefore intuitively contrary to the Koran.
(Note, however, that there is nothing specific within the Koran prohibiting democracy, and in fact the Koran is silent on how rulers should be elected. In Iran, as an example of how an Islamic state is run, the Council of Guardians overseas the elected parliament, and reviews legislation to ensure they comply with their conservative and strict interpretation of Islam. On the other hand, one school of thought says that a popular election reflects God's will. There is room to maneouvere on this for even strict Muslims.)
So, some Muslims believe that resisting change - subversive Western thought - will preserve Islam. Other Muslims see the West as a spiritual wasteland because of the empahsis on consuerism and capitalism, and wish to resist this happening in the Islamic world.
Finally, many supposedly "fundamentalist" or "Islamist" organisations deny that they are in fact fundamentalis, but say that this is a label cast upon them by their opponents (usually autocratic leaders in places like Egypt and Morocco). They say they are Muslims, but moderate Muslims who believe that Islam can co-exist with secular ideals. They say they are painted as an extremist enemy in order for the autocratic rulers to obtain US or Western assistance to oppress them.
An example of this is again Turkey, where the supposedly fundamentalist Islamist party recently came into power - and the fear of the imposition of sharia law has not happened. Another example: in 1991, Algeria cancelled its election because the secular government was sure to lose to an Islamic party in a fair and democratic election - the secular government gave as its reason for cancelling the election that the Islamists would not hand over power if they lost the next election. In other words, the secular government illegally retained power when it seemed likely they'd lose it.
The fear is that an Islamist state would arise on the basis of "one person, one vote, one time only" (which is one reason why the West supports such odious regimes as the Sauds - if there were elections there, anti-Western fundamentalist Wahabis would come to power.)
As for the "jealousy" issue.... I think there is some truth to this. It must certainly rankle the people who think they are of the chosen faith to be militarily and economically subordinate to Christians and Jews. I don't think its a major issue though.
Nice post. I think that has a lot to do with it. Just browse the Web or go to the library, you'll read about so many interventions, arms dealing, and coups that it has to make anyone feel a little ashamed.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
Comparing Hussein to Hitler is just insane. Saddam Hussein isn't even on the same scale as Hitler when it comes to dictators. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but comparing him to Hitler is the worst comparison since PETA compared the Holocaust to meat production.
Beyond insults, I don't see that you have any facts to back up your opinion.
Saddam Hussein, as I've said repeatedly, is estimated to have killed over 1 million of the current 24 million population of Iraq. I would call that significant genocide, limited only by the lack of WMD's to expand his empire. An expansion Hussein temporarily accomplished in Kuwait. And barring U.S. intervention in 1990-1991, Hussein was poised to conquer the rest of the Arabian peninsula.
Hussein had a genocide rate proportionate to Hitler's, in terms of ratio of the population he controlled.
Saddam's treatment of Kuwait's citizens, during the months it was occupied by Iraq, further supports my assertion.
One can easily see that to be the standard of treatment for any territory conquered by Iraq.
It was only U.S. intervention that prevented Saddam Hussein from spreading an empire across a good portion of the Arab world. And having his brand of rape, looting, torture, public hangings, and other cruelty spread across a much wider region.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Thanks. I think the reasons I listed are more objective than just kneejerking out "jealousy" and "inferior culture" on a keyboard, without any or minimal justification for the comments. quote:
Comparing Hussein to Hitler is just insane. Saddam Hussein isn't even on the same scale as Hitler when it comes to dictators. Saddam Hussein was a bad guy, but comparing him to Hitler is the worst comparison since PETA compared the Holocaust to meat production.
Saddam himself liked to think of himself as a parallel to Stalin, not Hitler.
I think in 1990 he was on the same level as a junior Hitler. Certainly if he'd had nukes, Iraq would now extend to Israel. By 2003, sanctions had crippled the country, and the army had never recovered after the Gulf War. Whatever his aspirations, he was no Hitler by the time the showdown came along. (Hitler didn't have to exchange food for oil to feed his people.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
Ah, Dave, I see we have a different definition of Hitler. I tend to look at the potential to grab for territory and the atrocities, not just the atrocities.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Thanks. I think the reasons I listed are more objective than just kneejerking out "jealousy" and "inferior culture" on a keyboard, without any or minimal justification for the comments.
Fuck you too, Dave.
That was uncalled for.
And I've justified my comments more than enough here.
You've been kneejerking out a fair amount of biasedly anti-American rhetoric of late. Glass houses, throwing stones, and all that. I don't see that my views are any less well supported than yours.
So get off your high horse.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Thanks. I think the reasons I listed are more objective than just kneejerking out "jealousy" and "inferior culture" on a keyboard, without any or minimal justification for the comments.
Fuck you too, Dave.
That was uncalled for.
And I've justified my comments more than enough here.
You've been kneejerking out a fair amount of biasedly anti-American rhetoric of late. Glass houses, throwing stones, and all that. I don't see that my views are any less well supported than yours.
So get off your high horse.
Where have I been biasedly anti-American?
You really expect to be able to blandly and authoritatively assert that the religious culture of over a billion people is "inferior", and get off scott free?
Over here's the heat: over there is the kitchen door.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I'm handling the heat just fine, Dave.
I just get a little sick of your condescension and self-proclaimed superiority. Very unbecoming.
You'll notice that even when I disagree strongly, I can just respectfully disagree. But you seem to feel a need to personalize it. And when you do that, it's harder for me to just respectfully disagree.
You seem to feel that when you have an opinion on an issue, your opinion becomes fact. And when I, (or anyone else) has an opinion on a subject and you disagree with it, no amount of facts I present are ever adequate to validate the point, in your oh-so-superior estimation.
Which is pretty typical of many of the liberals who post here. I like to keep it civil and stick to the issue, but you make it pretty difficult to maintain a discussion of the issue.
I wish you'd take your own advice from a previous topic, and "Go for the ball, not the man."
Which was pretty funny even in that topic, as I pointed out there, because you were the one going for the man and not the ball.
I'd be glad to have a discussion of the issue at hand, if you and several others would refrain from dragging these topics down to insults and personal remarks that obscure the issue being discussed.
But then, this was just a one-sided Bush-bashing topic to begin with.
I should follow the example of the Nature Boys, and just stick to one-liners and not waste my time attempting to engage you in serious discussion.
You give the APPEARANCE of wanting a real debate, and even offer some facts. And I really don't mind your dissenting opinion, even if I disagree with it.
But then you constantly personalize it to the point that your personal insults and condescension eclipse any real debate of the issue in any given topic.
As for your anti-American rhetoric, it's quite prevalent in your posts.
This one a few weeks ago really pissed me off, because I go to the comic book discussions to get away from these partisan trench wars and have fun, and it really pissed me off that you took a fun topic about Superman's upbeat and arguably symbolically American qualities, and you felt a need to turn it sour:
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=164290&page=28&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
An adolescent power fantasy/morality play. Or, perhaps, a fantasy plot device capable of rendering the world into simplistic black and white by which all problems are capable of resolution through the exercise of effortless power. Kind of like American foreign policy. But perhaps, to be more kind, an expression of American idealism, in what was perceived to be a simpler time.
I just felt it pointless and inappropriate.
Just like the schmucks who felt a need to urinate on Rob's "Official list of 9-11 victims" topic:
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=216616&page=10&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
If you feel a need to post this stuff, okay, fine. I feel a need to regard it for the kneejerk anti-Americanism that it is, and after a while give it all the attention that it deserves: None.
I wish I could say it's been a pleasure. It used to be, at one time. You seem oblivious to your own bias and kneejerk tendencies.
There are times when I still enjoy discussions with you. But so often lately, you feel a need to divert into condescension, dismissive categories, and insults.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
hahahahahaha. Oh god, where to start. Let's start off with myself. As you very well know (hopefully), the images I post are somewhat related to the political specrum either directly or as parody. I don't as a matter of habit post females jutting their asses into a camera. That would be .....um...."obscene".  quote:
I think Whomod and others really believe these allegations, they aren't trying to deceive anyone, they truly believe the biased rhetoric that the liberal media relentlessly churns out. Again, allegations made to the point that people so often they think it MUST be true, the allegations are made so often.
Try these on for size.
quote:
"We know [Iraq] had a great deal to do with terrorism in general and with Al Qaeda in particular and we know a great many of [Osama] bin Laden's key lieutenants are now trying to organize in cooperation with old loyalists from the Saddam regime " - Paul Wofowitz 9/11/03
""Zarqawi is actually the guy I was referring to -[I] should have been more precise," - Paul Wolfowitz - 9/12/03
"simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction," - Dick Cheney 8/26/02 before the VFW
"Yeah, I did misspeak,"We never had any evidence that [Hussein] had acquired a nuclear weapon." " - Dick Cheney Sunday on Meet the Press
[WMD's] "they're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south, and north somewhat," - Donald Rumsfeld
"I don't know the answer." [in regards to the locations of WMD's] Donald Rumsfeld; May 27, before the Council on Foreign Relations
"'We believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'-Vice President Dick Cheney on 'NBC's Meet the Press', March 16"
"'I don't believe anyone that I know in the administration ever said that Iraq had nuclear weapons.' - Donald Rumsfeld, at a hearing of the Senate's appropriations subcommittee on defense, May 14
"We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction and relatively soon." - Paul Wolfowitz 03/03
Now notice that nowhere has the hand of your eveil biased media come into play. These all are direct quotes from people in this Administration. And thank you for painting me with such a broad brush as to have me say "all Republicans are evil". No, i do not think all Republicans are evil. I do however think this Administration has time and again resorted to flat out lying and then retracting once the initial damage/opinion they wanted put out has set in as conventional wisdom. If you think it traitorous of me to hold these people into account then too fucking bad.
Cheney on Meet the Press, Sunday was tailor made for your consumption. I'd post the L.A. Times Editorial titled Cheney in Wonderland but what's the use, you'll only call it "liberal", never mind that the other 2 editorials alongside it were pro-conservative, 1 against the 9th Circuit Courts stopping of the recall election and one against a bill requiring mandatory health insurance for all buisnesses hiring 200 or more people. Both opinions favoured by REPUBLICANS. Ah, the evils of that "liberal" media. I mean fuck, if anyone actually dares to pick up a pencil, do their damn job and detail all the contradictions of these people, suddenly they're all a bunch of pinko traitors! ![[yuh huh]](images/icons/rolleyes.gif)
quote:
"It is not a coincidence that the two fields most commonly accused of being liberal - journalism and academia - are two fields whose central purpose is the pursuit of truth." - Kenneth Quinnell
I noticed you also tried to paint Democratic opposition as somehow demoralizing to the troops. Where do you get your news? All the interviews I've seen show the troops are demoralized from their daily attacks (up to 17 a day) and their extended tours of duty. Not because the "liberals" are actually daring to question, treasonously i'm sure.
(One guy I saw interviewed when asked on the record "what do you think of George W. Bush?" slyly said, "he's the President of the United States" and nothing more. When soldiers were asked off the record though the Administration was found to be increasingly becoming more unpopular over there as well for the very same reasons that I have problems with the Administration, not because of any demoralization by "liberals". And of course others were also found to be solidly pro-Bush. In other words, a microcosm of the way things are back home).
quote:
There's a difference between reasonable dissent on some finer points, and the treasonous demoralizing anti-American vitriol of liberal Democrats.
Figures you'd post a lengthy defense of Ann Coulter. I mean really, the way you talk sounds as if you're on some jihad against the evil of the left or something. If you'd like I can repost the lengthy quotes of our founding fathers and presidents that encourage dissent, regardless of whether there is war declared or otherwise. I'm just shocked you haven't told me to 'love it or leave it' yet.
I wish I could find a posting I had from one guy on the Yahoo message boards that attacked my Ben Franklin quote that I use. He essentially said that Ben Franklin didn't have to deal with plane crashing terrorists and that his opinions are about as useful today as that of the colonial blacksmith. He reminds me of you in a way.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
This one a few weeks ago really pissed me off, because I go to the comic book discussions to get away from these partisan trench wars and have fun, and it really pissed me off that you took a fun topic about Superman's upbeat and arguably symbolically American qualities, and you felt a need to turn it sour:
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=15;t=001678;replyto=000005
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
An adolescent power fantasy/morality play. Or, perhaps, a fantasy plot device capable of rendering the world into simplistic black and white by which all problems are capable of resolution through the exercise of effortless power. Kind of like American foreign policy. But perhaps, to be more kind, an expression of American idealism, in what was perceived to be a simpler time.
I just felt it pointless and inapropriate.
What? LOL! I was talking about how I felt about Superman!
In any event, it was an honest assessment. I don't like Superman for those very reasons.
On the other hand, just to make the point, I quite like Captain America, the powerless but courageous patriot, for different reasons - his WW2 history somehow evokes for me the gutsy and selfless American spirit of Normandy, Iwo Jima, and Guadacanal.
Superman is not brave - he is effortlessly powerful, an adolescent wet-dream of strength which I see paralleled in American foreign policy (and others - Iranians were calling the US "The Great Superman" a few years back). Captain America is noble and brave, and despite his lack of powers he commands respect from his peers and his foes. He is first amongst equals.He draws inspiration from a love of his country. (He has a cool shield, too.)
Do you see my point?
I think I've made it plain many times that I have nothing against the US, nor Americans generally. I'm rather fond of Americans, to be honest - they have a lot in common with Australians. Certain Americans (for some reason, Texans) I hold in especially high regard, especially Americans who understand and enjoy Monty Python.
But I am very suspicious of what the French call hyperpuissance, because it gives one country carte blanche to do as it pleases. I definitely side with "Old Europe" on that issue. I don't think that's unnatural, or biased against America or Americans generally.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
I think if you even dare to look at U.S. foreign policy critically and not in the jingoistic 'do no wrong' slant of the neocon right, you are automatically suspect as being anti-American or traitorous or dare i say it even my favourite 'blame America'.
I do so love all those little TV ready catch-phrases.
Whatchutalkin 'bout?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
|
|
terrible podcaster 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 17,801 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Certain Americans... I hold in especially high regard, especially Americans who understand and enjoy Monty Python.
![[woooOOOOoooo!]](graemlins/smilewoo.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I believe I already answered this fallacious assertion... quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
I think if you even dare to look at U.S. foreign policy critically and not in the jingoistic 'do no wrong' slant of the neocon right, you are automatically suspect as being anti-American or traitorous or dare i say it even my favourite 'blame America'.
I do so love all those little TV ready catch-phrases.
Whatchutalkin 'bout?
...when I said this, in the middle of the last page:
quote:
Again, I expect this condemnation and hyperbole of U.S. military operations in Iraq, from Arabs and the French and Germans, but find it traitorously self-serving and destructive from our own U.S. Senators.
If Democrats were acting responsibly, morale among both the military and among U.S. citizens would be much higher.
Constructively push for improvements, yes, but to blindly condemn our presence in Iraq as a whole, from within our government in Washington, is a betrayal of our troops in the field, and can do nothing other than confuse the public and demoralize our troops on the ground.
When in point of fact, our military should be proud of what they've accomplished, and be highly praised for such a monumental achievement.
Clearly, it's not dissent of any kind that I have a problem with, but the scorched-earth rhetoric of several Democrats, where they can't seem to acknowledge any of the valid reasons for the war, or effectiveness of many of Bush's actions.
I don't have a problem with Democrats, or anyone else, constructively criticizing the President, and pushing for specific changes to create a more effective policy. But, --much like several liberals here-- it seems to be more name-calling, "miserable failure", "another Vietnam", etc., rhetoric, that bashes the President without offering any clear alternative action.
And for the Nth time, I didn't vote for Bush. I'm again in the odd position of defending a guy I didn't vote for. I would have preferred John McCain, and ended up voting in 2000 for Ralph Nader, not being pleased with any of the other choices.
And I don't plan to re-elect him. I've made comments on several topics about Democrats (Kerry, Lieberman, Graham, and Biden) that I've largely agreed with. And of those running, would consider electing. And I'm not the blinders-on Right wing extremist who sucks up every line of Newspeak, that you'd like to portray me as.
I don't think I've ever said "all Democrats are evil." But I do have a huge problem with MANY Democrats who seem to specialize in divisive, angry, and slanderously misleading rhetoric (Dean, Gephardt, Rangel, Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, etc.)
And I don't support Bush in a lot of areas, particularly tax cuts. But I strongly support him on defense.
I don't have a problem with productive, polite and constructive dissent. I DO have a problem with the angry, divisive, slanted, misleading rhetoric that seems to have galvanized in the Democrat party since the 2000 election. I've never seen such a relentless, snotty and vindictive attack on any President prior to 2000.
And although Bush is not my first choice, I've been increasingly offended by these relentless, trumped-up, slanderous attacks on Bush, that although he's not my man, he's still our President, and I'm disgusted these allegations can be made against him without proof.
Show me the semen-stained dress, already !
And regarding the photo-image. I figured I'd post a sexy shot that both sides of the aisle could appreciate, irregardless of politics. A nice tease-shot, all the more compelling because it's not too revealing. If you don't appreciate it, maybe you need some viagra. :)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
HEY DAVE TWB.... Bush Distances from Cheney on Saddam-9/11 LinkThe 'liberal' media is at it again. ![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif) As I said earlier, comments tailor made for a eager and willing audience of hard core faithful so desperately willing to beleive in the neocons bullshit. How many retractions, backpedaling,and corrections will it take, man?! By the way, I also would have preferred McCain. Yes, he's a Republican, the difference is that I actually trust the guys character and honesty. To me, it's not so much about party either. I probably wouldn't trust anything coming out of Joe Leiberman either. quote:
I've never seen such a relentless, snotty and vindictive attack on any President prior to 2000.
You must never have heard of Ken Starr. May I suggest reading Blinded By the Right to see how one investigation into a bad land deal spiralled into a vindictive years long/ $40 million dollar chase for every right-wing rumour and innuendo finally culminating into a 'gotcha' lying under oath statement about a blow job (since of course none of the other myraid accusations and investigations could ever be proven). Or just turn on AM radio to see vitrol and venom fly wildly about the dreaded "liberals" (IE: anyone not far right wing) on a daily basis. These people think we're fighting a culture war. I say it's about time to push back.
quote:
Originally Posted by Dave
Over here's the heat: over there is the kitchen door.
amen.
I have to add before someone says "payback", that a blow job didn't cost billions a month and the almost daily loss of American life (I would add Iraqi life as well but who are we kidding, these people generally don't give a fuck anyways). All for a war that was planned long before 9/11 and a war for which the reasons for it are becoming disproven over and over and over and over.... That is until another lie is fed to become conventional wisdom and PROOF until they have to quietly retract it a week later beneath the notice of the average FOX news viewer.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I consider Yahoo and AOL news to be liberally biased. And the article you linked above has text in the article that contradicts the headline. quote:
from the article:
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11," Bush told reporters as he met members of Congress on energy legislation.
Democrats have accused the administration of creating a "false impression" at the heart of a widespread U.S. public belief that Saddam had a personal role in the attacks.
A recent poll by the Washington Post said 69 percent of Americans believed there was a Saddam link to the Sept. 11 attacks although no evidence of such a link has surfaced.
Cheney, interviewed on Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," left open the possibility of a Saddam link to the attacks.
Cheney said on Sunday "It's not surprising" the public would believe Saddam was involved in the attacks, blamed on the al Qaeda network of Osama bin Laden, who has repeatedly praised the attacks.
"We don't know," Cheney said. "We've learned a couple of things. We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s."
Bush said Cheney was right about suspicions of an Iraq-al Qaeda link, citing the case of Jordanian Abu Musab Zarqawi, a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al Qaeda...
As with most of the slanted liberal coverage, it screams contradiction in its headline, and then makes a federal case out of miniscule differences between the two.
Bush says there's no evidence of a connection between Saddam Hussein and 9-11 at this point.
Cheney says there's no proof of a connection at this time, but that there was clear communication between Saddam Hussein's government and Al Qaida going back 10 years. Cheney says at this time there's no proof of Saddam's involvement in 9-11 terrorism, but some level of communication existed between Saddam and al Qaida.
So again, the differences between Bush and Cheney's views are miniscule.
Both agree that there is no absolute proof. Cheney expands on that, and mentions suspicions of some level of communication between Saddam and Al Qaida.
Your shocking breakthrough of a link is much ado about nothing.
And here's a retraction I just saw by the BBC, admitting that they didn't have adequate sources to report the allegation that Blair had "sexed up" his speech calling for invasion of Iraq, with false claims of Iraq's missile capabilities:
(the associated press: )
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/college/hurricanes/sns-ap-britain-weapons-adviser,0,2118272.story
(and a less clearly worded BBC version: )
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3114738.stm
~
Regarding Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton, I don't see mean-spiritedness in his pursuit of his federal investigation. Ken Starr has a very polite manner, and didn't make any wild allegations. He was absolutely committed to the fact that Clinton is guilty of a crime (perjury to a grand jury, that resulted in a 40 million dollar investigation that Clinton could have prevented with a little honesty at any point, for Democrats here who are immune to the facts, and allege Clinton's only crime was extramarital sex. Clinton's dishonesty also prevented discussion of the nation's business for close to two years).
And after Clinton's repeated denial that he did anything wrong, Clinton was finally forced to confess the truth when Lewinsky produced a semen-stained dress.
And even then, Democrats bypassed that Clinton was guilty, and accused Republicans of "mean-spirited" pursuit of Clinton.
REALITY CHECK: Clinton committed a crime.
And while Clinton was being investigated, I think Starr handled the investigation as politely as he could, with no cooperation from Clinton or the other Democrats.
Many papers across the country, liberal ones included, called for Clinton's resignation and/or impeachment in their editorial pages while Starr was doing his investigation.
I really felt bad for Starr, for the way he was unjustly trashed by the liberal media. While just doing his job as politely as he could, as special investigator of Clinton.
In contrast, there is no proof, ONLY RELENTLESS ALLEGATION, that Bush or Cheney have acted illegally.
And you constantly drag Bush over the coals for what are just a handful of American deaths. If one American dies, you want Bush to cut and run from Iraq.
REALITY CHECK: Wars involve inevitable American casualties, and even so, the losses are remarkably small ( less than 300, over the entire course of the war and occupation). I think your rhetoric is completely unrealistic about the risks of war.
I saw an interview tonight on PBS News with Bernard Kerik, who for the past four months has served as interim minister of interior in Iraq, and he said he doesn't understand the outcry for progress. He said he has been able to do more for Iraq's police force in Baghdad in four months than he was able to do as police commissioner of New York City in FIVE YEARS.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/newshour_index.html
( under today's date, 9/17/2003, under "Securing Iraq" )
The Bush administration and our military are engaged in reconstruction on a massive scale, and you're slanderously badmouthing a lot of people who are doing an incredible job in Iraq, as quickly as they can.
Again, how long did it take to rebuild Japan, Gemany, and the rest of Europe. Or even a tiny place like Kosovo?
As Hal Lindsey said, where's the "exit strategy" from Germany and Japan?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11 "There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," George W. Bush. I say "put up or shut up". quote:
A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.
My my, I wonder where they all got that impression!
By the way, I think it's time to make a list of all the news outlets that are "liberal"
1)Yahoo News
2) AOL News
Another quote. Notice the tricky wordplay:
quote:
[Bush went to war against Saddam was because he posed a threat in]"a region from which the 9-11 threat emerged." - Condoleeza Rice
Yeah. A shame he accidentally attacked Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia. A shame his administration tosses "proofs" however flimsy of Iraq's involvment but supresses 28 pages that clearly indict the Saudi's.
There used to be a thread at the old DC boards titled "Milking 9/11"....... ![[no no no]](graemlins/nono.gif)
quote:
Cincinnati: Iraq Threat. Oct 7/02
Some citizens wonder, after 11 years of living with this problem, why do we need to confront it now? And there's a reason. We've experienced the horror of September the 11th. We have seen that those who hate America are willing to crash airplanes into buildings full of innocent people. Our enemies would be no less willing, in fact, they would be eager, to use biological or chemical, or a nuclear weapon.
The attacks of September the 11th showed our country that vast oceans no longer protect us from danger. Before that tragic date, we had only hints of al Qaeda's plans and designs. Today in Iraq, we see a threat whose outlines are far more clearly defined, and whose consequences could be far more deadly. Saddam Hussein's actions have put us on notice, and there is no refuge from our responsibilities.
State of the Union Address. Jan 28/03
Since September the 11th, our intelligence and law enforcement agencies have worked more closely than ever to track and disrupt the terrorists.
Our war against terror is a contest of will in which perseverance is power. In the ruins of two towers, at the western wall of the Pentagon, on a field in Pennsylvania, this nation made a pledge, and we renew that pledge tonight: Whatever the duration of this struggle, and whatever the difficulties, we will not permit the triumph of violence in the affairs of men -- free people will set the course of history.
Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans -- this time armed by Saddam Hussein.
Mission Accomplished. May 1/03
The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men -- the shock troops of a hateful ideology -- gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed. (Applause.)
In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th -- the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
Back From Vacation. September 7/03
For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response.
Since America put out the fires of September the 11th, and mourned our dead, and went to war, history has taken a different turn. We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power.
And for America, there will be no going back to the era before September the 11th, 2001 -- to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength -- they are invited by the perception of weakness.
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Now why do so many Amereicans beleive Sadaam had something to do with 9/11?
Bush may want to further distance himself from Cheney after this:
Oil services firm paid Cheney as VP
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,894 Likes: 52 |
"Regarding Ken Starr's investigation of Bill Clinton, I don't see mean-spiritedness in his pursuit of his federal investigation. Ken Starr has a very polite manner, and didn't make any wild allegations. He was absolutely committed to the fact that Clinton is guilty of a crime (perjury to a grand jury, that resulted in a 40 million dollar investigation that Clinton could have prevented with a little honesty at any point, for Democrats here who are immune to the facts, and allege Clinton's only crime was extramarital sex. Clinton's dishonesty also prevented discussion of the nation's business for close to two years).
And after Clinton's repeated denial that he did anything wrong, Clinton was finally forced to confess the truth when Lewinsky produced a semen-stained dress.
And even then, Democrats bypassed that Clinton was guilty, and accused Republicans of "mean-spirited" pursuit of Clinton.
REALITY CHECK: Clinton committed a crime.
And while Clinton was being investigated, I think Starr handled the investigation as politely as he could, with no cooperation from Clinton or the other Democrats.
Many papers across the country, liberal ones included, called for Clinton's resignation and/or impeachment in their editorial pages while Starr was doing his investigation.
I really felt bad for Starr, for the way he was unjustly trashed by the liberal media. While just doing his job as politely as he could, as federal prosecutor of the Clinton investigation.
In contrast, there is no proof, ONLY RELENTLESS ALLEGATION, that Bush or Cheney have acted illegally."
Actually wasn't quite a bit of that 40 million spent on various other investigations? And the Lewinsky lie happened towards the end of all these investigations? And didn't these investigations start out with allegations that ended up being empty? We had quite a few years of various investigations that spawned new ones & that was wrong! Despite the far right wingers, Clinton gave us more jobs & a better quality of life. Crime was down & the deficit was getting paid. He wouldn't of pissed away all the goodwill the world had for America after 9/11 either. Bush really should look at what was working so well during Clinton terms & copy it & stay out of flight suits. His days in the Air Force are not going to get him re-elected.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqmiddleeast2000-1997.htm
Trying to make Iraq fit a pre-exsisting agenda. Again, since I think you missed it.
quote:
MEDIA ADVISORY:
Media Silent on Clark's 9/11 Comments:
Gen. says White House pushed Saddam link without evidence
June 20, 2003
Sunday morning talk shows like ABC's This Week or Fox News Sunday often make news for days afterward. Since prominent government officials dominate the guest lists of the programs, it is not unusual for the Monday editions of major newspapers to report on interviews done by the Sunday chat shows.
But the June 15 edition of NBC's Meet the Press was unusual for the buzz that it didn't generate. Former General Wesley Clark told anchor Tim Russert that Bush administration officials had engaged in a campaign to implicate Saddam Hussein in the September 11 attacks-- starting that very day. Clark said that he'd been called on September 11 and urged to link Baghdad to the terror attacks, but declined to do so because of a lack of evidence.
Here is a transcript of the exchange:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLARK: "There was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001, starting immediately after 9/11, to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein."
RUSSERT: "By who? Who did that?"
CLARK: "Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home saying, 'You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein.' I said, 'But--I'm willing to say it, but what's your evidence?' And I never got any evidence."
Clark's assertion corroborates a little-noted CBS Evening News story that aired on September 4, 2002. As correspondent David Martin reported: "Barely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon, the secretary of defense was telling his aides to start thinking about striking Iraq, even though there was no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks." According to CBS, a Pentagon aide's notes from that day quote Rumsfeld asking for the "best info fast" to "judge whether good enough to hit SH at the same time, not only UBL." (The initials SH and UBL stand for Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.) The notes then quote Rumsfeld as demanding, ominously, that the administration's response "go massive...sweep it all up, things related and not."
Despite its implications, Martin's report was greeted largely with silence when it aired. Now, nine months later, media are covering damaging revelations about the Bush administration's intelligence on Iraq, yet still seem strangely reluctant to pursue stories suggesting that the flawed intelligence-- and therefore the war-- may have been a result of deliberate deception, rather than incompetence. The public deserves a fuller accounting of this story.
http://www.fair.org/press-releases/clark-iraq.html
"The people can always be brought to the
bidding of leaders. That is easy. All you have
to do is tell them they are being attacked, and
denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same in any country." - Hermann Goering @ Nuremburg
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Bush: No Proof of Saddam Role in 9-11
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein had al Qaeda ties," George W. Bush.
I say "put up or shut up".
quote:
A recent poll indicated that nearly 70 percent of Americans believed the Iraqi leader probably was personally involved.
My my, I wonder where they all got that impression!
Whomod, why do I get the impression that most of what you post is canned anti-Bush rhetoric from a liberal website?
You consistently post things that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell, etc., said previously and try to label them as liars and contradictory. MY OWN opinions are not the same on many things, both political and personal, as they were six months or a year ago.
As I quoted from Rumsfeld at length on a previous topic, when he was in front of a Senate committee a few months ago, he said he made comments prior to the Senate hearing that, for example, we knew for certain that Iraq had WMD's, and that we knew exactly where in Iraq these WMD's were.
Rumsfeld said he wasn't lying previously, he was speaking with the best intelligence that was available to him at the time he made the initial comments. And the intelligence Rumsfeld based his comments on was --like any other intelligence reports that both he and the Senators receive updated EVERY DAY-- can be corrected later to have been corroborated, to have been completely wrong, or just slightly clarified intelligence.
Or we may have actually known exactly where the weapons were 7 months ago, and at this point now now they've been slipped off to Syria, or are buried under the Iraqi desert somewhere.
I'm confident that if you went through every speech, press conference, and off-the-cuff remark to reporters by Democrats, you'd find similar inconsistencies, and outright stupid remarks by Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and other Democrats. People everywhere get rushed, make erroneous statements, can be very tired from a long day when interviewed, or whatever. Democrats say stupid stuff too.
( Rush Limbaugh used to run them on Democrats. He especially liked to rip on the idiocy of Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders ).
But with a Democrat in the White House, the liberal media doesn't report these things, the way they have the mis-step comments of Reagan, Bush Sr., and ESPECIALLY, Dan Quayle and G.W. Bush.
I don't count as "lies" things that were said several months ago, that appear to be honest mistakes, or based on faulty intelligence they were given. I think they're too smart not to know that outright lies would be proven to be outright lies, and wouldn't announce things they knew to be untrue. Because in a few months, it would eventually come to light and they'd be called on it.
When they found mobile labs, Rumsfeld and Bush said in comments to the press that WMD evidence had been found. I think they truly believed that at the time when they were interviewed and said we had proof of WMD chemical labs, that we had the smoking gun, and they later were informed a day or two after making these comments that the mobile labs were swept clean of evidence, and not the smoking gun they first proclaimed to the press.
In a situation like this, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Whereas you eagerly jump on the slightest inconsistency, and hype it to death.
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
By the way, I think it's time to make a list of all the news outlets that are "liberal"
1)Yahoo News
2) AOL News
I think you can count virtually the entire U.S. media, except for a few overtly conservative sources, such as the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and a few others.
And a few conservative columnists. I again refer to G-Man's stats from the "Liberal Media" topic.
http://www.robkamphausen.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=27&t=000801
The amount of reporters who identify themselves as liberals or Democrats is an overwhelming majority.
The number of reporters who say they consistently vote for Democrats are an overwhelming majority.
And that colors the news with an inevitable liberal bias, when they report on conservatives, whose views they don't share.
This has been made clear in a number of books and studies.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Liberals DO have a tendency to bury any facts that contradict their pet theories of how the world works.
There have been a number of reports I've seen in such mainstream sources as 20/20 and 60 Minutes, and elsewhere, news reports condemning textbooks that present a politically correct (and historically incorrect) view of history.
And the squeezing out of the classics of literature, for a more "culturally diverse" selection of required reading, mapped out by liberals.
Liberals don't seem too wild about a truly broad education, that includes exposure to conservative views. Or facts.
A recent distortion of history of this type that really annoyed me was the push for a politically corrected sculpture to commemorate 9-11. The source photo for the sculpture is of three New York firemen raising a U.S. flag. The liberal call was to change the firemen to one white, one black, and one hispanic.
Once again, distortion of true history.
Another that bugs me is the ongoing attempt to deny the role of Christianity in the forming of American government and institutions.
And attempt to purge Christianity --and representative Christians-- out of our government, schools and courts, in the name of "separation of church and state". A fabricated argument for separation that didn't even exist historically, until secularists manufactured its "historic" existence a few decades ago.
Clearly, our contract government is based on Biblical principles, and our founding fathers throughout their writings encourage the teaching of Biblical values and principles in schools.
And believe the absence of Christian principles was the basis for the fall of every prior attempt to create democracy in human history, which is abundantly evident in the writings of our founding fathers.
The only restriction the founding fathers intended was to prevent one particular denomination of Christianity from being imposed on all citizens, as Roman Catholicism was in Europe, and as the Anglican Church was imposed on all of England, to the exclusion of all others.
I find it amazing that our Christian roots can be denied, and most recently, shut out of an Alabama courthouse.
Quote:
TEN COMMANDMENTS MONUMENT REMOVED
by Kyle Wingfield, The Associated Press
.
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Aug. 27) - A moving crew rolled a massive Ten Commandments monument out of the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building on Wednesday to comply with a federal court order, as anguished protesters prayed at the building's steps.
.
It took about an hour and a-half to lift the 5,280-pound granite marker and roll it from its public site to a private place in the building.
.
About 100 pro-monument supporters who have been on a weeklong vigil on the building's front plaza were urged to remain calm and not rush the glass doors. Some yelled, but the crowd was restrained.
.
Two dozen city police were stationed around the perimeter of the building and others patrolled the surrounding block on motorcycles.
.
A federal judge ruled last year that the monument, which Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore installed two years ago, violates the constitution's ban on government promotion of religion and ordered its removal by Aug. 20. The U.S. Supreme Court last week declined to hear Moore's appeal.
.
Moore had refused to comply. Eight associate justices voted Aug. 21 to remove the monument, and Moore was suspended the next day on charges of violating canons of judicial ethics.
.
There was no immediate comment on the removal from Moore. His spokeswoman, Jessica Atteberry, said he was not available but that his legal team would have a statement later.
.
Patrick Mahoney, director of the Christian Defense Coalition, a group fighting the move, said building manager Graham George told him he would be allowed inside to see the monument later. Mahoney said he didn't know if the monument's new location will be accessible to the public.
.
The federal court had said the monument could be in a private place in the building but not the highly visible spot in the rotunda directly across from the building's entrance.
.
People seeking removal of the monument from its public site had said they were grateful that it was finally being moved, a week after the deadline set by a federal judge.
.
"This is a tremendous victory for the rule of law and respect for religious diversity," the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said before the monument was rolled out of the rotunda. "Perhaps Roy Moore will soon leave the bench and move into the pulpit, which he seems better suited for."
.
Lynne's organization was among groups suing to remove Moore's monument, which he installed without telling the other eight Supreme Court justices.
.
Demonstrators promised to keep up their protests of the removal.
.
"If it takes 75 years to reclaim this land for righteousness, God find us and our children and our children's children ready," said the Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the national clergy council.
.
An afternoon hearing had been scheduled in federal court in Mobile on a lawsuit seeking to keep the monument in the rotunda, but it was canceled.
.
The lawsuit, filed on behalf of a Christian radio talk show host and a pastor, had argued that forced removal of the monument would violate the constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion.
.
Attorney General Bill Pryor, defending the associate justices, had argued that the Mobile court lacked jurisdiction and the complaint lacked merit.
.
Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said the lawsuit relied on "outlandish legal arguments to defend the justice's blatant promotion of religion."
.
About 150 monument supporters marched on Pryor's office Tuesday, demanding he resign for supporting the associate justices' decision. Seven representatives were allowed inside to meet with Pryor's chief deputy for about 20 minutes. The rest remained outside, chanting "Resign now! Resign now!"
.
Mahoney has accused Pryor of political grandstanding to aid his nomination to a federal appeals court. The nomination has been stalled by Senate Democrats who attacked the Republican Pryor for stands against abortion and in favor of states' rights.
.
Pryor has said it is his duty to uphold a federal court order to remove the monument.
--------------------
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness..."
Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
I do listen to Hannity and FOX news religiously. It's all part of being a news junkie. I try to listen to Larry Elder especially when the topics pertain to race but usually in his case, the shrillness is more than I can stomach. By the way, how does the world work, if I may ask? I hope it's not some Darwinian model. I prefer to beleive the world works on a set of core values established by the society we happen to live in. Both religious as well as political. That being said, I base my worldview on the socialist leaning teachings of Jesus Christ and on the U.S. Constitution. I suppose you could also blame Theodore Geisel. I did enjoy him immensely as a child learning to read. I once heard (from conservatives) that his subversive books inspired the hippie movement! That devil! If you must blame anyone, blame Dr. Suess.  http://www.geocities.com/onewhoisalmighty/sneetches.html quote:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
You definately are preaching to the wrong person on this church/state issue. I'm of the beleif that we should even do away with all the masonry symbols on our currency and Government buildings.
As far as that P.C. 9/11 statue. Well this left-leaning guy thought it was a sick stupid joke. Distortion of fact is wrong. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
I loved FOX news's spokeswoman's comment in relation to Christiane (what is her surname...something-apour. Mental blank.) from CNN's assertion that the press had not asked enough questions pre-invasion. She described FOX as being the foot soldiers for Bush.
FOX said, "We may be the foot soldiers of Bush, but that's better than being the spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
So much for balanced and non-partisan news reporting. You question the government, and you support al-Qaeda? What kind of mental blinkers are on these people?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
You question the government, and you support al-Qaeda? What kind of mental blinkers are on these people?
Don't tempt me like that again!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
a good article on our reasons for being in Iraq quote:
It's The War, Stupid
By: Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Wednesday, Sep 10, 2003
For a country smack in the middle of World War III, we are certainly a blasé bunch.
We're worried about how much fighting the people who want to kill us will cost and whether we have an "exit strategy" in Iraq.
Craven politicians and crazed columnists are second guessing President Bush who, at times, looks like he's first guessing the nation's foreign policy.
Since Mr. Bush, for some inexplicable reason, will not spell it out for you it falls on me to do so.
There are around the world thousands of Islamic fanatics who want to kill Americans because they believe Allah is down with that.
These people are taught from the time they are children that Jews and Americans are undeserving of life on this planet.
There is no negotiation with the most of these zealots; there is nothing one can say to dissuade them.
They want blood and they will use any and all means to get it.
A number of nations help these killers and allow the murderous anti-American indoctrination to continue generation after generation.
Iran, Indonesia, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are the most threatening to us, although the Saudis do have some pro-American government officials like Prince Bandar, its ambassador to the United States.
Iraq used to be a terrorist enabler primarily by helping the homicide bombers kill civilians in Israel but Saddam Hussein was open to causing trouble for the USA however he could.
The Islamic killers thrive on the Palestinian situation. As long as the Palestinians are denied a state of their own, the propaganda machine that demonizes Israel and America will roll along unchallenged in the Arab world.
So the only way to break down the hatred many Arabs have toward us is to forge a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement that both sides can live with.
In order for Israel to cooperate in this effort fully, it needs to feel secure. Having the Americans in Iraq helps that effort.
Also, the USA needs a democratic outpost in the Middle East to put pressure on the terrorist states of Iran and Syria.
A foothold in that region makes it infinitely more difficult for Al Qaeda to carry out its evil doing.
Just the huge CIA presence in Iraq alone, gives the USA a major advantage in learning about terrorist operations before they hurt we the people.
This nonsense about the United Nations rescuing America in Iraq is something Aesop would have published.
The UN is a chaotic chamber with no sense of urgency about terrorism and no sympathy towards the USA.
Now some of that antipathy might be justified but not when American lives are at stake.
In a perfect world, all countries that aid and abet terrorism would be isolated and embargoed. But this is far from a perfect world.
The failure of France, Germany, Russia and China to aggressively help America neutralize terror states is an outrage of historic proportions. France is the worst.
The Chirac government lied to Secretary of State Colin Powell about enforcing the UN resolution demanding Saddam cooperate with the weapons inspectors.
Then France actively undermined both the war and the occupation. President Bush should level with the American people about the duplicity of France and, to a lesser extent, Germany.
I know this would cause an uproar but what the French have done to hurt America and Israel is unconscionable.
At the same time, the Bush administration must begin earnestly persuading nations that are not overtly hostile to us that we don't want to dominate the world, we want to make it safe for everyone.
Finally, World War III is unlike any war in history and mistakes will be made in the fighting of it.
The Bush administration has the correct global view regarding terrorism but poor communications skills both within the country and abroad.
The sad truth is that most people don't even know that World War III is underway and have little understanding of the strategies and stakes.
But believe me, you and your family are in danger. We must stop the partisan bickering and acknowledge that brain-washed fanatics have us in their sights.
And this time there's no Geneva Convention and no limits on deadly weaponry. This time there is no "exit strategy."
It's us or them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
I agree on the need for a Palestinian state. However, I really doubt that will happen and if by any chance it does, it won't last too long. Too much hatred and distrust on both sides for something like that to work. Especially given the fact that the PALS stubbornly stick to the script that Isreal has no right to their land.
As far as democracy in the mideast. You only need to look over at Turkey, Pakistan and Egypt to see that true democracy is pretty near impossible. Which I guess supports my idea that mixing your religion and your politics is a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
Iraq is a lot more secular to begin with than other Middle East nations. So if democracy is possible anywhere in the region, it's Iraq.
BBC news last night showed the beginnings of what an open and democratic society will bring to Iraq. The two hottest items are 1) European and American porn, and 2) TV satellite dishes, which irreversibly kicks open the door to the rest of the world, and views from outside the region. This alone I think will make Iraq more compatible over time to the rest of the world.
Brineyspearsatemyshorts, I'm glad you posted that article by O'Reilly. I'm not a fan of his show, but in this particular article, he makes a great point that while we wax philosophic about the value of every life and a relatively small war loss of less than 300 American soldiers, we are, in fact, unconsciously swept up in the middle of a Third World War. And that the stakes are the survival of Western culture.
I agree completely, it's us or them.
And I also agree that the Bush administration should be doing a much better job of making clear our objectives, and quickly deconstructing the disinformation of Muslim extremist rhetoric, and of their willing accomplices, liberal pundits in America and Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
This isn't WW3.
Survival of the Western World? Phoo-ey.
No one ever looks at history in the broad context except historians.
Islamic fundamentalism was at its peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It has been ebbing away ever since.
19 fuckwits killing 3000 people won't change that.
Muslims are generally introspective. They are conerned with Muslims issues. A clash of civilisations with the West is overstated, IMHO. Its also fueled by Western paranoia over 9-11. Objectively speaking, that paranoia is about 20 years late. It should have been about when Nasser was talking about a pan-Arabic state.
I read an interesting article from a Lebanese Christian academic this morning in yesterday's International Herald Tribune (the international edition of the NY Times). He says he can't blame Westerners for thinking that all Muslims are a pack fo raving zealots, after watching Lebanese TV. It broadcats a debate between an Islamist, a "moderate Muslim" and some virulent anti-Muslim Western guy I'd never heard of. Apparently the Westerner was quick on his feet, and led these guys in circles. But the biggest disappointment was the Muslims. Both admitted that it would be right to kill a British peacekeeper in Afghanistan for being an infidel occupier.
The writer was extremely disappointed to see a so-called moderate Muslim say this. He said he had studied the Koran, as a Christian, and dealt with Lebanese Muslims every day. All of them were moderate, peaceful people who wanted to get on with thier lives and did not ever adocate violence.
One thing he did say, which brings me to my point, is that all of these people were on TV because they are extreme in their views. Polarised views make good TV. I have read before that Indian Muslims are very upset about being portrayed as terrorists, because all they see on Western TV is this wrong stereotype.
All this blather here about "Liberal media" and "Conservative media" has made me realise that we, Muslims, Jews, whoever, watch what we want to watch on Tv, and believe what we wish to believe, because no matter what point of view we take, there will be something in the media - some opinion, some view point, some fact - which will back us up.
The media is in effect polarising society/societies. This is no great insight - I saw a story on CNN about this a year or so ago - Jews and Muslims in the US, living blocks apart from each other, each tuned into their respective channels of preference, each getting different versions of events.
This board, and this thread, is a perfect example of the results of such polarisation. Everyone believes what they wish, and there will be some sort of editorial or sound-bite to back them up.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,826 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
we, Muslims, Jews, whoever, watch what we want to watch on Tv, and believe what we wish to believe, because no matter what point of view we take, there will be something in the media - some opinion, some view point, some fact - which will back us up.
The media is in effect polarising society/societies. This is no great insight - I saw a story on CNN about this a year or so ago - Jews and Muslims in the US, living blocks apart from each other, each tuned into their respective channels of preference, each getting different versions of events.
This board, and this thread, is a perfect example of the results of such polarisation. Everyone believes what they wish, and there will be some sort of editorial or sound-bite to back them up.
well said.
this is exactly what i've been saying for quite some time ... but with bigger, smarter words, proper spelling, and capital letters.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
And I also agree that the Bush administration should be doing a much better job of making clear our objectives, and quickly deconstructing the disinformation of Muslim extremist rhetoric, and of their willing accomplices, liberal pundits in America and Europe.
While I agree that the US administration (any US administration) needs to be better at getting its message across (the sound bites it gets on al-Jazeera aren't enough) there are two issues:
1. they also need to convince people to actually watch it (following on from my last post);
2. they need to think about the message. I read the article on Negroponte's veto of the UN resolution on Arafat. Irrespective of what you think or don't think of Arafat, as the Palestinian observer pointed out, what kind of message is it that the supposed arbiter or Middle East peace won't condemn an Israeli plan to assassinate or deport an elected Arab leader? Protecting Israel is a central plank in Us foreign policy, and that's fine. But where is the even-handedness? How are people in that region supposed to respect the US over this? Where is the clever diplomacy, the weighed messages?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
|
|
Educator to comprehension impaired (JLA, that is you) 50000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 53,734 Likes: 2 |
Arafat is a known backer of terrorist, i dont think we need to support a resolution barring Israel from threatening him to be a proper broker....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 25,469 Likes: 37 |
I think your last post has quite a few good insights, T-Dave. quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
This isn't WW3.
Survival of the Western World? Phoo-ey.
No one ever looks at history in the broad context except historians.
Islamic fundamentalism was at its peak in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It has been ebbing away ever since.
19 fuckwits killing 3000 people won't change that.
Muslims are generally introspective. They are concerned with Muslim issues. A clash of civilisations with the West is overstated, IMHO. Its also fueled by Western paranoia over 9-11. Objectively speaking, that paranoia is about 20 years late. It should have been about when Nasser was talking about a pan-Arabic state.
All the statements in this quote I don't agree with. Violent radical Islamic fundamentalism is on the rise, and all reports I've seen indicate a growing tide of eager new terrorist recruits. I don't see terrorism subsiding.
I'd be more inclined to believe Islamic radical fundamentalism was on the wane (inclined by such hopeful things as the new generation in Iran's discontent for Islamic fundamentalism, and push for democracy), if not for the radical fundamentalism that threatens to overthrow governments in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and even the recently liberated Kuwait.
And the fact that vast percentages of Muslims worldwide openly endorse this terrorism. As I've already quoted repeatedly from an article in the Washington Post, that 30% to 50% of populations throughou the Muslim world that began boycotting U.S. products and businesses, even against the pleas of their own leaders. And many attempts since.
And comments I've seen in many interviews over the last two years with young Muslims, such as two female college students who expressed they want to go to the West Bank and join their brother Palestinians as suicide bombers in Israel.
And as I said earlier, in the "Young, Muslim, and American" story on 60 Minutes, where a Muslim American girl said, "If I were to suicide an American military base, I would go to heaven".
To say nothing of the terror cels arrested over the last two years in the U.S. and Europe, and the increasingly grandiose displays of terrorism from 1993 forward, leading up to 9-11-2001. And fortunately, many Islamic terror-cels arrested since 9-11, before they could complete their mission.
While I don't see a unified pan-Arab state, I do see an effort across the Muslim world to tear down any pro-western governments.
And I wouldn't be surprised any day to hear news that the governments of Egypt, Jordan or Saudi Arabia have been violently overthrown.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
I read an interesting article from a Lebanese Christian academic this morning in yesterday's International Herald Tribune (the international edition of the NY Times). He says he can't blame Westerners for thinking that all Muslims are a pack fo raving zealots, after watching Lebanese TV. It broadcasts a debate between an Islamist, a "moderate Muslim" and some virulent anti-Muslim Western guy I'd never heard of. Apparently the Westerner was quick on his feet, and led these guys in circles. But the biggest disappointment was the Muslims. Both admitted that it would be right to kill a British peacekeeper in Afghanistan for being an infidel occupier.
The writer was extremely disappointed to see a so-called moderate Muslim say this. He said he had studied the Koran, as a Christian, and dealt with Lebanese Muslims every day. All of them were moderate, peaceful people who wanted to get on with their lives and did not ever adocate violence.
That's what I consistently see. That so often, man-or-woman-on-the-street Muslims, or "moderate" Muslims, so often voice belief in the same violent ideology as the radicalists.
Whether the man on the street Muslim would do the violence him/her-self, I find it bone-chilling that he/she approves of it. And I think it's with a twisted sense of "fairness" that the media tends to portray Muslims as less favorable on average to violence than they truly are.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
One thing he did say, which brings me to my point, is that all of these people were on TV because they are extreme in their views. Polarised views make good TV. I have read before that Indian Muslims are very upset about being portrayed as terrorists, because all they see on Western TV is this wrong stereotype.
All this blather here about "Liberal media" and "Conservative media" has made me realise that we, Muslims, Jews, whoever, watch what we want to watch on Tv, and believe what we wish to believe, because no matter what point of view we take, there will be something in the media - some opinion, some view point, some fact - which will back us up.
The media is in effect polarising society/societies. This is no great insight - I saw a story on CNN about this a year or so ago - Jews and Muslims in the US, living blocks apart from each other, each tuned into their respective channels of preference, each getting different versions of events.
This board, and this thread, is a perfect example of the results of such polarisation. Everyone believes what they wish, and there will be some sort of editorial or sound-bite to back them up.
My doctor --a Muslim from India-- has expressed similar frustration over the sweeping perception of Muslims. But Muslims I've met from Iran and the Palestinian territories have frankly scared the crap out of me --well before 9-11-- with what they beleive.
I agree completely that the news media, on any given political issue, tends to square off two polarized extreme positions, for the sheer sensationalism of making the fireworks fly between them.
Whether out of liberal bias, or simply a bias toward sensationalism, I agree that the news media likes portraying extreme polarization, which further polarizes large populations who watch this kind of coverage.
But in formation of my own views, as I've said, I started out believing that 9-11 was perpetrated by just a few extremists. And as time went on, that portrayal in the news ceased to ring true for me, as I've seen that many Muslims worldwide endorse terror on the U.S. and other Western countries.
Regarding coverage of Bush, I agree that it definitely goes to two extremes. That I have to go to conservative publications to read anything favorable about Bush speaks for itself. And much of my harsher rhetoric here stems from the frustration that I have to go away from mainstream sources to see any coverage that is favorable to Bush. I don't look at FOX News as an objective source, but neither are ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. I try to de-code between the extremes exactly what the truth is.
And again, I've defended Bush here, because I think he's taken an unfair beating, and that the conservative Republican side has been under-represented.
I didn't vote for him, but feel the relentless Bush-bashing hasn't made a case for his guilt of anything.
While he's our President, and until someone comes up with a smoking gun, I support him. But I hope to see him replaced in 2004, with a Democrat who has a strong national defense position. If Dean or Gephardt is the candidate, I might have to vote for Bush.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896
10000+ posts
|
|
10000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 14,896 |
To be honest, I haven't even considered who I'll vote for....or even if I will. It always seems to be a "lesser of the two evils" voting process, and I dislike that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
Arafat is a known backer of terrorist, i dont think we need to support a resolution barring Israel from threatening him to be a proper broker....
Oh, no, that's not true. That's been repeated so many times everyone thinks its true. That's Israeli speculation. There is no solid evidence to link Arafat to Hamas or other extremist attacks.
In fact, his very inability to stop such attacks at opportune times suggests he has no control over them.
One thing this says is that his leadership is weak and largely symbolic, querying why anyone should bother deal with him since he cannot effectively broker a deal which would bind all players. But it also explains why the Palestinian Authority is so incapable of trying to disarm militants as required under the "peace plan". First, no Pal. extremists are listening to them. Second, the Israelis have wrecked their ability to police, with the incursions.
I see no one has mentioned the overwhelming vote in the emergency General Assembly session to try and compel Israel to withdraw its threat against Arafat. Only two votes against: Israel and the US. I think there were 30 odd abstentions, to be fair, but what does that tell you about world opinion on Arafat's symbolic importance?
If Arafat is assassinated, it would be disasterous for Israel. People trying to broker a fair peace in Europe and Russia, and other countries who think both Israelis and Palestinians deserve a homeland, would be marginalised against the Israelis.
Don't forget, for all that the Israelis think of Arafat as being a terrorist and unhelful (the latter of whihc he surely is), Sharon is considered a war criminal by even European countries for his massacres of Arabs in Lebanon as a military commander. For every Hamas suicide attack, which kills civilians, Israeli rocket strikes kill their targets and innocent bystanders. Everyone is as bad as each other in this mess.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
|
|
Banned from the DCMBs since 2002. 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 15,367 Likes: 13 |
quote:
That so often, man-or-woman-on-the-street Muslims, or "moderate" Muslims, so often voice belief in the same violent ideology as the radicalists.
Whether the man on the street Muslim would do the violence him/her-self, I find it bone-chilling that he/she approves of it. And I think it's with a twisted sense of "fairness" that the media tends to portray Muslims as less favorable on average to violence than they truly are.
I think that ties into the umma concept I talked about before. Muslims see their co-religionists under siege, in Chechnya, the Balkans, Palestine, eastern Turkistan (western China), and between India and Pakistan.
They emphathise with their fellow Muslims' struggles. They approve of the "freedom fighting", in the same way many American approved of the IRA's atrocious activities in Northern Ireland. (Many English people will never forgive the IRA for killing Lord Mountbatten. And who supplied the money for those bombs? Irish-Americans in Boston and New York.)
But would those moderate Muslims take up guns themselves? No, aside from the hardcore muhajadeen who kicked the Soviets out of Afghanistan, and who keep popping up all over the place.
|
|
|
|
|
![[DOH!]](graemlins/homerface01.gif)
