Do militant islamic groups hate the west for what it is or for what it does?

[ashurbanipal]

It had to do with oil. How very genius of them. The greed of the Sauds and other elite have allowed for no other sort of creativity. They have married their nations to their depleting oil supplies. It's too bad none of us are going to be around when they run out. Because if they do not change it will be ugly. The rest of the world will cease to have an interest and they will be left with finally having to blame themselves for their self inflicted wounds.

Our greed as well.

In any event, they work with what's around them so this is neither cause for surprise or belittlement.

Also, freshwater is a crisis within the Middle East and it is going to intensify. Survival is what drove their techniques to desalinize sea water.

Well, they are desalinating it to inject it into their oil fields. This was necessary because when Chevron, Exxon, and Mobile were finally exitirpated from SA, it was discovered that they had run the fields full-bore in an attempt to maximize profits. This is one of the great unsung quasi-criminal acts in history.

There have been plenty to note. However, they are exceptions to the general reality and to their history. Like I said...the "near" absence.

Well, I'm kind of hard pressed to think of very many Western innovations of significant note in the past decade or so.

Obviously, it comes down to an Arab elite that has greedily hoarded their people's money and have not allowed for the technological advances that the rest of the world has built civilizations around.

The arabs had a saying that was popular in the 1960's: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son will fly a jet. My grandson will ride a camel." The comparative history of oil management in the middle east is instructive; the Arabs, Persians, and North Africans have always known the oil would run out and have tried to husband it carefully while exploiting it for their benefit. We, on the other hand, have done no such thing. Many of those "technological advances" rely on oil and once the oil is gone, they'll be a liability. When it comes down to it, we've gained very little over our pre-industrial ancestors if oil is taken out of the equation. Much of the knowledge gained during the last century will be meaningless to us in just a few more decades, though admittedly some will be very important.

I saw a story on MSN yesterday extolling the benefits of a smaller house, which I find particularly interesting. I agree with James Howard Kuntsler that suburban sprawl will eventually be seen as the single biggest misallocation of resources in history. Keeping a firm agricultural base will turn out to have been very smart.

Like I have said, were it not for them, the Middle East may have a very different face upon it today and we would not be dealing with so much Islamic radicalism. Other civilizations do not experience such radicalism - a tribute to the opportunities offered by our societies and to our cultural robustness.

1) Keep in mind that we installed those elites who are so greedy. We wanted that; Roosevelt saw the need for it and did what he thought needful (though I would consider myself very far left, I don't see Roosevelt as any kind of saint).

2) I don't know that other civilizations don't go through such periods of radicalism. I see a potential for this happening on a grand scale in the U.S. It's certainly the case that China during the 1960's and early 1970's was ideologically radical.

Any culture which oppresses its women and excludes them from education and the workplace cannot possibly compete with the West and its intensifying human efficiency. The matter of women’s freedom is the defining issue of our age. The most profound and fateful divide between human cultures today places the failures decisively on the side that would continue to deny women their basic human rights and equitable opportunities, with the successes on the side that realizes, at last, that women are better suited to be men’s partners than their property.

This, as you've stated it, is correct. But this is subtly different from the point originally under discussion, which was that societies which oppress women are inherently unable to compete. If everyone oppresses women equally, then the playing field is levelled. That said, I think that the oppression of women or denying them rights would be absurd if it weren't also evil.

Despite eternally gloomy headlines, our country probably has the lowest wastage rate of human talent in the world. Even in Europe, "over-skilling," in which inherent and learned abilities wither in calcified workplaces, produces social peace at the cost of cultural and economic lethargy, security at the price of mediocrity.

Depends on what you mean. In any event, give it another 5 or 6 years and the folly of our actions will become apparent. We've sacrificed a lot in the name of economic growth, a concept alien to Smith's and Ricardo's theories.

The math isn't hard. Any country or culture that suppresses half its population, excluding them from economic contribution and wasting energy keeping them out of the school and workplace, is not going to perform competitively with a nation that practices the opposite. The standard counterargument heard in failing states is that there are insufficient jobs for the male population, thus it is impossible to allow women to compete for the finite incomes available. The argument is archaic and wrong. When talent enters a work force, it creates jobs. Competition improves performance. In order to begin to compete with the American leviathan and the stronger of the economies of Europe and the Far East, less-developed countries must maximize their human potential. Instead, many willfully halve it.

I agree with this; there's no excuse and no intelligent reason to prevent women from having jobs, getting educations, or being in all ways equal with men, aside from certain obvious exceptions.

Our culture is a mix of cultures and diverse religions. There is no mystery why we have so many athiests. Because of our immigrants wishes to be "Americans," they place patriotism at a high level (often if not most, above their religions). Most people in our culture claims that they are "American" before they claim they are a certain subscriber to a religion. Further reason we have far less zealots and radicals willing to murder for "God."

Again, that has a flip side; we're not willing to kill for God but we're certainly willing to kill for x-boxes and Ford Explorers.

No, I merely mention that as long as the world needs their oil, they must remain civil and stable. Unfortunately, they are unable to do this without our involvement. Correct or not, the world needs the oil. Were it not for the greed of their elite and their fanatic element's wishes to return to their glorious past (which is mostly myth), this would not be such a problem.

Yes, the world does need the oil. I'm probably more aware than most of what would happen if ME oil supplies were suddenly cut off. Economic collapse would be the least of our worries. But two points:

1) Nature will be doing this for us before too long anyway. The only point of prolonging it is to allow time to innovate. But we're not doing that on any meaningful scale. If we were serious, we would be pouring money into Shale Oil and clean coal gassification, wind farms on the East and West Coasts, Solar farms in New Mexico and Arizona, and refurbishing our light and heavy rail systems. I mean somewhere in the range of a quarter trillion dollars or so, and yes we'd have to raise taxes to do it. That we're not doing this is absolutely suicidal; if we're not going to innovate and change on that scale, then prolonging the inevitable only has the effect of making it worse.

2) We chose to put ourselves in the situation of needing it. The younger generations now alive will be paying dearly for the decisions their grandparents made (irrespective of the fact that those decisions probably seemed right at the time).

3) Again, we put those greedy elites there to begin with. We did so with the understanding that they'd oppress their people and make them work cheap to extract oil for us. If we paid the common workers of the ME a wage comparable to American Minimum Wage, oil would be somewhere north of $20.00 a gallon by the time it got to the pump here. We didn't want that, ergo those greedy elites you keep mentioning.

 

[MSgt]

Our greed as well.

Our "greed" ensured the necessary oil flow to the western world and to our people. Our government did wjhat it was supposed to and the ignorant people complain about what their government is supposed to do. Their greed abused and oppressed their people simply for money and for power.

Well, they are desalinating it to inject it into their oil fields. This was necessary because when Chevron, Exxon, and Mobile were finally exitirpated from SA, it was discovered that they had run the fields full-bore in an attempt to maximize profits. This is one of the great unsung quasi-criminal acts in history.

Who's criminal act? We do not tell the elite how to govern their people. They have done it to themselves and instead of accepting blame, they offer America up to the oppressed masses.

Well, I'm kind of hard pressed to think of very many Western innovations of significant note in the past decade or so.

Then don't restrict your self to the last decade. Go back a century. Go back two! This attempt desperately hang onto an argument won't work with me. It's as simple as who can build a car and who cannot. This say's a whole hell of a lot. We gave the oil money to the business men in Saudi and they inturn did with it according to their own greed and neglect.

The arabs had a saying that was popular in the 1960's: "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son will fly a jet. My grandson will ride a camel." The comparative history of oil management in the middle east is instructive; the Arabs, Persians, and North Africans have always known the oil would run out and have tried to husband it carefully while exploiting it for their benefit. We, on the other hand, have done no such thing. Many of those "technological advances" rely on oil and once the oil is gone, they'll be a liability. When it comes down to it, we've gained very little over our pre-industrial ancestors if oil is taken out of the equation. Much of the knowledge gained during the last century will be meaningless to us in just a few more decades, though admittedly some will be very important.

This is mere desperation. There are plenty of other energy sources. Oil is just the preferred method of the day. When the time comes, we will persue the road of progress, while the Middle East finds itself without a babysitter.

1) Keep in mind that we installed those elites who are so greedy. We wanted that; Roosevelt saw the need for it and did what he thought needful (though I would consider myself very far left, I don't see Roosevelt as any kind of saint).

BS. The men of that time are long gone. As is the Shah of Iran. This is their culture and they are suffering for it.

2) I don't know that other civilizations don't go through such periods of radicalism. I see a potential for this happening on a grand scale in the U.S. It's certainly the case that China during the 1960's and early 1970's was ideologically radical.

More BS. The Radicalism of those times cannot compare with what is occurring in the Middle East. You're trying to compare Dahmer to the guy down the street who killed the clerk in a hold up. There is a very extreme difference between the two and no amount of appeasing or "smoothing" will make them equal.

This, as you've stated it, is correct. But this is subtly different from the point originally under discussion, which was that societies which oppress women are inherently unable to compete. If everyone oppresses women equally, then the playing field is levelled. That said, I think that the oppression of women or denying them rights would be absurd if it weren't also evil.

What the hell are you trying to say here? Often it very much appears that you will stop at nothing to defend these people. Open your eyes. Societies that oppress their women are inherently unable to compete with civilizations who do not oppress half of their populations. The world does not oppress their women equally and it will never be so. Women as properties of men is a passed down tradtion that the west has outgrown. There is no denying that our civilization had progressed at a furious pace once we allowed the creativity and competitiveness of our women to affect the other "priveledged" part of our civilization.

Depends on what you mean. In any event, give it another 5 or 6 years and the folly of our actions will become apparent. We've sacrificed a lot in the name of economic growth, a concept alien to Smith's and Ricardo's theories.

Yes, we should embrace the Muslim world as our own so that we don't reap the wirlwind of our "follies." Progress isn't designed. We've sacrificed nothing except what little idealogue nonsense that exists in the mind of the individual.

I agree with this; there's no excuse and no intelligent reason to prevent women from having jobs, getting educations, or being in all ways equal with men, aside from certain obvious exceptions.

Yet, this being one of the greatest failing core passed down traditions of the Muslim world and a very prevailant trait among the Radical and terrorist element, you continue to desperately defend this world and bash away at America. This civilization is failing and they are doing it to themselves. You strip away all of the oil, and you are left with a culture of blame and of pre-historic traditions that are trying to exist in a world of advance,ment and technology. They cannot compete and they know it. It is rubbed in their faces daily. We l;ive in an age where change is so frantic that entire cultures cannot cope. The future is going to belong to those nations that can receive and cipher information. Those cultures that cannot or simply restrict what information gets to their people will be losers. The Middle East already has a head start.

Again, that has a flip side; we're not willing to kill for God but we're certainly willing to kill for x-boxes and Ford Explorers.

Such is life. Economic strength is what makes nations strong. And in this age and the future, the world is going to be divided between cultures who can grasp this and cultures who cannot or refuse to. Like it or not, we are the Future, the Middle East is not.

3) Again, we put those greedy elites there to begin with. We did so with the understanding that they'd oppress their people and make them work cheap to extract oil for us. If we paid the common workers of the ME a wage comparable to American Minimum Wage, oil would be somewhere north of $20.00 a gallon by the time it got to the pump here. We didn't want that, ergo those greedy elites you keep mentioning.

This is complete fabrication and is mere opinion. More BS. Get your head out of the commentaries and study it for yourself. The Saudi Arabs work for what they work for. If they do not receive raises, it is their government's problems. We do not control the inner workings of any of these governments. The best thing for us and the world would have been for the Shah of Iran to treat his people with dignity and respect. The best thing for America and the world would have been for the Saudi elite to treat their people with dignity and respect. Instead, they screwed us and the world by treating their people like "subjects" and ruled them through oppression and denied them their basic human rights.

- The Shah was replaced by a man of the people and he in turn oppressed, neglected, and slaughtered his people and brutalized Islam.

- We did not place Saddam in power and he oppressed, brutalized, and slaughtered his people.

- We did not place the Baathist Party in charge in Syria and they oppress, brutalize, and slaughter their people.

Therefore, it is a very logical assumption for an individual to believe that this culture is diseased and it doesn't matter what we do. If we were to take the Saudi elite out of power and allow the people to choose their next leadership, they would simply choose a zealot, militant or slaughter each other over who's guy is better. Case in point...Iraq. These people seem destined to be ruled by what is very naturally passed down from generation to generation.

Fixing blame for this on an outside source is very irresponsible and ignorant.

 

[ashurbanipal]

Who's criminal act?

1) quasi-criminal--meaning it should have been illegal but wasn't.

2) Exxon, Mobile, Chevron, and other assorted oil companies in SA prior to Saudi Aramco going national.

We do not tell the elite how to govern their people.

As I've said several times before, that is exactly what we do. Again, read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, When Corporations Rule the World, and Harvest of Hope for details and supporting examples.

Then don't restrict your self to the last decade. Go back a century. Go back two!

If we go back a century or two, things get dicey. At the turn of the 20th century, there's no question the west was on top and innovations were flowing. But prior to that, much of what inspired western inventors came from the near east. The smallpox vaccine was inspired by the practice of virolation in Turkey, as was much of the intellectual framework that grounded the germ theory of disease. Prior to 1850, the near and middle east were still supplying the west with plenty of intellectual inspiration in fields as diverse as medicine, chemistry, literature, law, and agriculture.

Anyway, so we're back to the car thing: I've asked the same question every time you bring it up. Is it because they are incapable of building a car, or just because they see no need?

This is mere desperation. There are plenty of other energy sources. Oil is just the preferred method of the day. When the time comes, we will persue the road of progress, while the Middle East finds itself without a babysitter.

Then why did you say:

Our "greed" ensured the necessary oil flow to the western world and to our people.

?

Either oil is necessary or it is not. I think it wasn't when we undertook its extraction, but now it is necessary to support a world population over about 1billion. There's another saying: "You made your bed, now lie down in it." We're doing all we can to avoid lying in the bed we made.

BS. The men of that time are long gone. As is the Shah of Iran. This is their culture and they are suffering for it.

Well, Custer is long gone but there are plenty of American Indians who still suffer for what he did. In any case, I was talking specifically about the Saudi royal family, along with the various emirates from other purely arabic states (Yemen, Kuwait, the UAE, etc). Obviously, though, the Shah qualifies.

Saddam does not, but some of his actions do. Specifically, he wasn't considered any kind of threat or rogue dictator or anything prior to his invasion of Kuwait. If you read the history of what happened leading up to that event, you again see that the American media painted a really skewed picture of what took place.

More BS. The Radicalism of those times cannot compare with what is occurring in the Middle East.

I think about 350,000 dead Tibetan Buddhists and the half million more currently in exile would disagree completely, as would the roughly 10 million oppressed Falun Gong.

What the hell are you trying to say here? Often it very much appears that you will stop at nothing to defend these people.

You missed the point--this sub-conversation started because you keep pointing to the backwardness of Muslims as the principle contributing cause of terrorism. I'm pointing out that very recently, we also oppressed women but at the same time came to rule the world.

In short, the disadvantage is only there because of things that could be another way--hence my denial that the disadvantage is inherent. While you're correct about this being a problem now, you never answered why when everyone (us included) was oppressing women, we still won. It seems that this means there are other pieces to the puzzle that don't appear in your account.

Yes, we should embrace the Muslim world as our own so that we don't reap the wirlwind of our "follies." Progress isn't designed. We've sacrificed nothing except what little idealogue nonsense that exists in the mind of the individual.

When did I say we should embrace the Muslim world? I don't believe in Islam any more than I believe in Christianity (which is to say, I agree with certain ideas of both but in general reject their edifii). It seems to me that the idealogue nonsense in the west is about progress, economic growth, etc. etc.

Yet, this being one of the greatest failing core passed down traditions of the Muslim world and a very prevailant trait among the Radical and terrorist element, you continue to desperately defend this world and bash away at America.

No, I haven't defended Islam except to point out that they have genuine, deep, and real grievances against us. That's far from saying that people like the Ayatollah or Bin Laden are good and worthy people--if anything I suspect that they serve corporate interests as much as our military does.

It used to be the case that America stood for ideals like freedom, honor, justice, courage, compassion, and right. Those are the things I believe in, and so long as I hold those ideals clearly in my mind, it's fairly easy for me to see that I'm being fed a line of garbage by the powers that be in this country. We can't square our actions since WWII with those ideals which we often continue to spout. We can't square the hardworking morality and ethic of our forefathers with riots over cabbage patch kids and CEO's who raid their company pension funds and then disappear to the carribean. We can't square the notion of justice with deposing Mossadegh or spreading civil unrest in Syria. We can't square the ideal of compassion and right with killing a quarter of a million Guatemalans to ensure a supply of cheap bananas. We can't square the ideals of honor and freedom with installing Suharto and sending him to kill thousands of Indonesian communists who were no threat to us whatsoever.

It seems to me now that America stands for social inequality, the bloodthirsty pursuit of oil, megacorporations, greed, cowardice, and fear-mongering. I consider it my duty to point that out even if it draws ire from people like yourself. I consider it my duty to try to change things to the extent that I can and bring back those ideals for which we once stood, and I do as much as possible along those lines without breaking any laws.

They cannot compete and they know it. It is rubbed in their faces daily. We l;ive in an age where change is so frantic that entire cultures cannot cope.

1) Should things be that way?

2) We'll see if that's the case 20 years from now. I think it's very unlikely that it will be.

Like it or not, we are the Future, the Middle East is not.

That doesn't make us right or them wrong.

This is complete fabrication and is mere opinion. More BS. Get your head out of the commentaries and study it for yourself.

I have studied it extensively. I have told you where to go to study it for yourself and find plenty of information on it. I have posted links in threads on this board to information on it which can be obtained with a mouse-click. If you think it's fabrication, then you ought to be able to show why.

The Saudi Arabs work for what they work for. If they do not receive raises, it is their government's problems. We do not control the inner workings of any of these governments. The best thing for us and the world would have been for the Shah of Iran to treat his people with dignity and respect.

If that is the case, why did we train his Savak police in methods of torture, interrogation, and assassination? As for the rest, you keep asserting that, but as I pointed out above, I've given actual informal citations to sources that claim otherwise. Now, if you've examined those sources and researched them to the point that you're able to actually show (by providing evidence) that they are making things up, then post the results of that study. Point out a couple books to read. Etc. For the most part, it seems that you just keep repeating that it's all B.S. and a bunch of fabrication. Anyone can say that about anything.

The best thing for America and the world would have been for the Saudi elite to treat their people with dignity and respect. Instead, they screwed us and the world by treating their people like "subjects" and ruled them through oppression and denied them their basic human rights.

No-the economics of oil extraction say otherwise.

Therefore, it is a very logical assumption for an individual to believe that this culture is diseased and it doesn't matter what we do.

I don't know that this is a logical conclusion from what you've posted. It appears that of the Muslim countries that are in trouble now, 100% of them are ones that we've had our fingers in at some point since 1950. And a plausible causal chain can be drawn between recent political coup and CIA destabalization activity and social oppression. Furthermore, it seems clear that some Muslim countries do not have oppression and social incoherence (Yemen, UAE, Kuwait, Jordan, Lebanon, etc.) in the same way that SA, Iraq, Iran, etc. do. So chalking it up to culture seems a little too simplistic. It might be the way their culture reacts to western intrusion, but those intrusions are things we would consider crimes, and we shouldn't expect anyone to have a good reaction to them.

 

[justone]

1) quasi-criminal--meaning it should have been illegal but wasn't. .

You are the court, you are the prosecutor, and you are the judge.

As I've said several times before, that is exactly what we do. Again, read Confessions of an Economic Hitman, When Corporations Rule the World, and Harvest of Hope for details and supporting examples. .

I prefer Corporations over you. You are not a dictator of my choice at all.

But prior to that, much of what inspired western inventors came from the near east. Prior to 1850, the near and middle east were still supplying the west with plenty of intellectual inspiration in fields as diverse as medicine, chemistry, literature, law, and agriculture. .

Looks like it, smells like it, must be it.

Is it because they are incapable of building a car, or just because they see no need? .

Just because they have a need, but they are incapable. Are you a racist of some kind? How they are different from us? All humans want a car. Not all are capable of building one.

I think it wasn't when we undertook its extraction, but now it is necessary to support a world population over about 1billion. There's another saying: "You made your bed, now lie down in it." We're doing all we can to avoid lying in the bed we made. .

Yeah, when you will be installed instead of the Corporations you will feed 1billion with 5 loafs.

I think about 350,000 dead Tibetan Buddhists and the half million more currently in exile would disagree completely, as would the roughly 10 million oppressed Falun Gong. .

Yeah , that all is America’s fault. We are an Empire of Evil, aren’t we?

I'm pointing out that very recently, we also oppressed women but at the same time came to rule the world. .

Who was oppressing women? I wish you to go back in time and try to oppress a woman. I will see you running for cover. Women rule in our civilization forever. If it was not for Helen ( just the one and only, not like 4 wives) men would not die storming Troy. There is oppression here and there is oppression there and they are 2 different things.

While you're correct about this being a problem now, you never answered why when everyone (us included) was oppressing women, we still won. .

See the above. We won in order to bring heads of our enemies to feet of our women.

That's far from saying that people like the Ayatollah or Bin Laden are good and worthy people--if anything I suspect that they serve corporate interests as much as our military does. .

Bin Laden==our military. Sick. You are suspicious and you build your life on suspicions and superstitions. Sick.

It used to be the case that America stood for ideals like freedom, honor, justice, courage, compassion, and right. .

Oppression of women, racial separation, monopolies, over-borrowed stock market and chains of bankruptcy, Japanese in concentration camps, Hiroshima, Dresden.
Can you stop dreaming? Those were the same good people as we are now.

We can't square our actions since WWII with those ideals which we often continue to spout. We can't square the hardworking morality and ethic of our forefathers with riots over cabbage patch kids and CEO's who raid their company pension funds and then disappear to the carribean. We can't square the notion of justice with deposing Mossadegh or spreading civil unrest in Syria. We can't square the ideal of compassion and right with killing a quarter of a million Guatemalans to ensure a supply of cheap bananas. We can't square the ideals of honor and freedom with installing Suharto and sending him to kill thousands of Indonesian communists who were no threat to us whatsoever. .

Life is unjust, life was unjust, life will be unjust. Get a life. I’ve been laboring for 11 hours today to pay off my 4x4. I would rather talk to Billo Really if he was on-line. At least, it doesn’t look like he is flashing his life down the toilet drain. Why don’t you have some fun, at least like Billo? Life is beautiful . And it has never been square. If we square it, it will loose the beauty.

 

[LittleMammoth]

Basically skimming through I'm not going to respond to anyone specifically.

Firstly one must ask who bombed who first? Not saying that the terrorists attacks were warranted nor that two wrongs make a right. But simply put the West has screwed around with the Middle East far longer then they have with us. Is there reaction tragic and morally wrong? Yes. Is it suprising? No.
I would be interested in getting a number of American civilians killed by muslims vs the number of Muslims killed by the west. I would assume that the later of the two dwarfs the former. Again not saying that it is ok for reactionary muslims to retaliate in such a manner, but we gave them a reason. As unmoral as it may be it is still a reason which was obviously good enough for them.

People keep talking about the inherent violence and conversion of the Koran. The Ottoman Empire had some of the most lenient religious issues during its height. I forgot what they were called nor do I feel like looking it up, but despite other religions being settled together in common areas, they were generally on the whole left to do there own bidding. Secondly on this point most of the lines in the Koran relating to the conversion of non-believers this usually does not mean Jews and Christians since all of them praise the same God. Again I really don't feel like looking it up, but in the Koran it states that people from Christianity and Jews need not be converted since they believe in the same god, though they are deceived. It will be Gods choice as to their moral character.

Does the middle east look down upon alot of our customs and culture? Yes, I believe it would be extremely hard to argue against this point. There real question lies on whether or not this disdain is enough to declare a holy war. This I can not answer the only people who can are those anti-Americans.

Granted Americans are not making themselves into bombs and blowing up people at random, instead we have the technology and the military capability to use different means.

One final thing we have to look at is when did the current state of unrest hit the Middle East. I would argue a big deal of it came with the recognition of Israel and the division of seperate states by the West.

 

[Mr. D]

Do militant islamic groups hate the west for what it is or for what it does?

Osama Bin Ladin is a brutal terrorist that must be killed, but don't under estimate him! He's a well educated and brilliant leader and organizer. He was instrumental in defeating the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan and he flew in thousands of harden troops to stop the Serbians from murdering Muslims! He plays on every misstep we make! So far we have played right into his hands out of ignorance! We'd better know our enemy!

If you want to know why Osama Bin Ladin and the fundamentalist terrorists are against the U.S why don't we listen to the very clear reasons he has given us, instead of listening to Professor of Middle Eastern Cultures George Bush! The terrorists have been telling us as clearly as they can, we just don't listen!

Consider the following:

• American military and cultural presence in the Islamic Mecca. American women in string bikinis while Muslim women are expected to cover their faces or wear burkas! Go to the deep South and put a porno movie theater and a strip club next door to a fundamentalist, Christian church and you'll start to get the picture from the warm welcome you'll get!

• Support of secular and pro oil business Middle Eastern Leaders like the Shah of Iran and the Saud family instead of supporting fundamentalist Islamic leaders and mullahs.

• Building the Wolfowitz Defense plan's permanent NeoCon military bases throughout the Middle East even though we claim not to want a permanent presence. This was brought up in the 1st Bush/Kerry debate and never denied to this day! The building of a natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan right after the war to which the Taliban refused to agree.

• Invading Iraq under the guise of WMD, missiles that could strike us in 45 minutes and killing over 10,000 Iraqis. It was common knowledge that Bin Ladin hated Saddam as a secular leader that had disgraced Islam. Bin Ladin had rebuffed every attempt Saddam had made for cooperation.

• Blind support of Israel's Zionist policies of making Palestine into an Israel committed to only Jewish control at the expense of it's Muslim inhabitants. The forcing of Palestinian Muslims out of their homes of centuries of generations and the hitrocities committed against Muslim civilians in Lebanon sanctioned by Israeli troops. (Bin Ladin experts don't believe he really cares about this issue, but rather uses it for recruiting and support! He came to it very late in the game!)

BOTTOM LINE: Osama Bin Ladin wasn't sitting in a cave one day when he discovered our Constitution said, "I hate American democracy!" He is a radical, Muslim fundamentalist! He wants his religion kept in the Middle Ages and not liberalized by Americans and their Infidel culture! HE WANTS US TO GO HOME AND KEEP OUR INFLUENCE OUT OF ISLAMIC CULTURE!

 

[cnredd]

Do militant islamic groups hate the west for what it is or for what it does?

Osama Bin Ladin is a brutal terrorist that must be killed, but don't under estimate him! He's a well educated and brilliant leader and organizer. He was instrumental in defeating the U.S.S.R. in Afghanistan and he flew in thousands of harden troops to stop the Serbians from murdering Muslims! He plays on every misstep we make! So far we have played right into his hands out of ignorance! We'd better know our enemy!

Well this is gonna be fun...

Teaching a retired teacher...The irony of it all...

If you want to know why Osama Bin Ladin and the fundamentalist terrorists are against the U.S why don't we listen to the very clear reasons he has given us, instead of listening to Professor of Middle Eastern Cultures George Bush! The terrorists have been telling us as clearly as they can, we just don't listen!

Sounds like an idea...

You should read the fatwa he put out in 1998...You know...BEFORE GWB was in office?...Can't resist the BDS, can ya?...

Consider the following:

I'll be the first since you didn't...

• American military and cultural presence in the Islamic Mecca. American women in string bikinis while Muslim women are expected to cover their faces or wear burkas! Go to the deep South and put a porno movie theater and a strip club next door to a fundamentalist, Christian church and you'll start to get the picture from the warm welcome you'll get!

According to that logic, there'd be terrorist actions against the strip clubs and porno movie theaters...Where's their 911?...

• Support of secular and pro oil business Middle Eastern Leaders like the Shah of Iran and the Saud family instead of supporting fundamentalist Islamic leaders and mullahs.

And yet the House of Saud forces Wahabbism...the very same religious sect of Bin Laden...

We've been supporting the Saudi family since before the 1930s...before Bin laden was born...

• Building the Wolfowitz Defense plan's permanent NeoCon military bases throughout the Middle East even though we claim not to want a permanent presence. This was brought up in the 1st Bush/Kerry debate and never denied to this day! The building of a natural gas pipeline in Afghanistan right after the war to which the Taliban refused to agree.

fatwa...'98...fatwa...'98...fatwa...'98...

Stop creating new reasons so you can tie it in with Bush...Very disingenous for someone who wrote this...

I'm looking for a place for some interesting discussion where I can learn something new from others while exchanging ideas.

You have no intention of learning...You want to push your anti-Bush spasms down people's throat...even if you have to make them up...

• Invading Iraq under the guise of WMD, missiles that could strike us in 45 minutes and killing over 10,000 Iraqis. It was common knowledge that Bin Ladin hated Saddam as a secular leader that had disgraced Islam. Bin Ladin had rebuffed every attempt Saddam had made for cooperation.

fatwa...'98...fatwa...'98...

Have you read the 30,000+ documents just released...Nobody has gone through 100% of them yet, but for some reason you declare your comments as fact...

I guess they should just go to you...since you have all of the answers and all...

• Blind support of Israel's Zionist policies of making Palestine into an Israel committed to only Jewish control at the expense of it's Muslim inhabitants. The forcing of Palestinian Muslims out of their homes of centuries of generations and the hitrocities committed against Muslim civilians in Lebanon sanctioned by Israeli troops. (Bin Ladin experts don't believe he really cares about this issue, but rather uses it for recruiting and support! He came to it very late in the game!)

Now we see the inner "Mr. D"...

I'm guess it stands for "Duke"...possibly "Deutcheland"...

Say "Hi" to Imperium & Lucidthots for us...

BOTTOM LINE: Osama Bin Ladin wasn't sitting in a cave one day when he discovered our Constitution said, "I hate American democracy!" He is a radical, Muslim fundamentalist! He wants his religion kept in the Middle Ages and not liberalized by Americans and their Infidel culture! HE WANTS US TO GO HOME AND KEEP OUR INFLUENCE OUT OF ISLAMIC CULTURE!

Uhhhh....nope...

Let's go to the EXACT wording from Mister "B" himself...

(1) The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

(a) The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all.

It is to this religion that we call you; the seal of all the previous religions. It is the religion of Unification of God, sincerity, the best of manners, righteousness, mercy, honour, purity, and piety. It is the religion of showing kindness to others, establishing justice between them, granting them their rights, and defending the oppressed and the persecuted. It is the religion of enjoining the good and forbidding the evil with the hand, tongue and heart. It is the religion of Jihad in the way of Allah so that Allah's Word and religion reign Supreme. And it is the religion of unity and agreement on the obedience to Allah, and total equality between all people, without regarding their colour, sex, or language.

(b) It is the religion whose book - the Quran - will remained preserved and unchanged, after the other Divine books and messages have been changed. The Quran is the miracle until the Day of Judgment. Allah has challenged anyone to bring a book like the Quran or even ten verses like it.

Hate to tell ya...It's not "Leave us alone and we'll leave you alone"...

It's "Submit to our brand of Islam or die"...

Although your reasoning was a lot nicer and flowery than his...

May I suggest a position as Public Relations with Philip-Morris?...:2wave:

 

[millsy]

Isn't it absolutely necessary when talking about why America is hated in the middle east, to have several discussions. I do not believe it possible to lump together a middle aged man in palestine with a teenager in Iraq and then again to Osama Bin Laden. The fact is that Osama bin Laden has his reasons for hating America. He then has to convince teenage boys to hate America. I do not believe for one second that he is giving them (the teenage boys) the same reasons to hate America that he himself hates the west for. And the middle aged Palestinian man is going to hate America for all together different reasons.

The west can not win a war on terror (it might not lose, but it will go on forever) unless it gets a lot smarter. It is good to ask why we are hated, you have to if you want to win discover the root cause of terrorism. But why do "they" hate "us" is far to simple a question.

 

[cnredd]

Isn't it absolutely necessary when talking about why America is hated in the middle east, to have several discussions. I do not believe it possible to lump together a middle aged man in palestine with a teenager in Iraq and then again to Osama Bin Laden. The fact is that Osama bin Laden has his reasons for hating America. He then has to convince teenage boys to hate America. I do not believe for one second that he is giving them (the teenage boys) the same reasons to hate America that he himself hates the west for. And the middle aged Palestinian man is going to hate America for all together different reasons.

The west can not win a war on terror (it might not lose, but it will go on forever) unless it gets a lot smarter. It is good to ask why we are hated, you have to if you want to win discover the root cause of terrorism. But why do "they" hate "us" is far to simple a question.

The title of this thread is more towards the truth then what you write...

The west...not JUST America...

America just happens to be the biggest representation of western society...If not for the US getting in the way, Europe would already be conquered by the Middle East instead of what they're doing now...silent invasion through mass immigration...

They come feigning oppression, but the Trojan horse will be revealed...

Sharia Law across Europe...2050,,,

 

[millsy]

The west...not JUST America...

America just happens to be the biggest representation of western society...If not for the US getting in the way, Europe would already be conquered by the Middle East instead of what they're doing now...silent invasion through mass immigration...

They come feigning oppression, but the Trojan horse will be revealed...

Sharia Law across Europe...2050,,,

okay, so substitute The West for everytime I said America, and tell me that it's incorrect. The fact is, there is no REASON why the Arab world hates America. There are many reasons, and vastly different reasons depending on who you ask. It's a question we must ask, but it will never be answered (unless foolishly) with one sentence.


You honestly believe that Islamic Immigrants are moving into western countries so they can set up armies from within?

 

[MSgt]

The fact is, there is no REASON why the Arab world hates America.

You are correct, however, you are also absolutely wrong. They have many reasons to hate us, though those reasons only make sense to them. You just simply cannot comprehend it, because you have not been raised under the oppression of a single dogmatic controlling Religion. It is far too simple for people to blame it all on our foreign policies. I'll explain with a few countries....

Iran: America and Great Britian, after WWII, chose the Shah of Iran as a close ally in the Middle East. We built up his military and befriended him. This is where our involvement stopped and Muslim neglect began. HE in turn neglected his people into poverty (It would have been better for us if he were the leader he should have been). Khomeini overthrew the Shah and brutalized Islam while oppressing his people. Saddam set his vision on Iranian oil fields and invaded. Khomeini eventually, through the use of hundreds of thousands of children sent to slaughter, repelled Saddam. Khomeini then fixed his visions on an Islamic theocracy spread all the way to Egypt. America steps in and arms Saddam enough to balance the field and keep Islamic theocracy contained behind the Iranian border. We ruined their great plans to bring their glories form the anchient past to present day. There is no "Cyrus the Great" anywhere in the Muslim world today.

Iraq: Saddam used those weapons and funds, received from America, to slaughter Kurds in his own country to satisfy his revenge for failing his invasion of Iran (It would have been better for us if he were the leader he should have been). A few years later, Saddam fixed his vision on the oil fields of Kuwait. He invaded and angered the west. America, with a colation of countries tahht like to accuse America of being oil driven, rushed to repell Saddam back to Iraq. In the mean time, Kuwaiti Muslims were freed and handed back their country. Later Saddam finances Palestinian suicide bombers. For his exportation of terror ranging from warring against Iranian Muslims, Kuwaiti Mulsims, and terror against Israeli jews and Muslims and his continued hatred towards America for his embarrassing spanking in Kuwait, America and a coalition of countries took him. In the mean time, Iraqi Muslims were freed.

"Palestine": Meaning well, and behaving foolishly, we plunged into the Arab-Israeli conflict as an "honest broker," although neither side can accept the compromises required by such brokering, while our baggage as both Israel's primary supporter and the long-time backer of many of the most reprehensible Arab regimes is a debilitating handicap to mediation. Stability in the Middle East is critical, no matter if it is impossible without a Carthaginian peace imposed by one side or the other. We continue to swim in this quagmire and hope against hope.

Saudi Arabia: The world relies on a stable oil importation and we deal with greedy, cynical, bitter men who neglect, oppress, and abuse their people. As long as the oil flowed, we have looked the other way. As lucrative as the oil business is, Saudi Arabi should be a jewel amongst smaller jewels. THEY have refrained from building world class universities, schools, and libraries. THEY have oppressed their people under a perverted dogmatic religion, where women are treated as the property of men and not equal to men. THEY have neglected to build industry and today we see an entire civilization who cannot even build a car. All they have is the oil and the greed of the elite who only care about their personal bank accounts.

Syria: We have done nothing to Syria, yet they hate us. They are oppressed by the Baathist Party and their reformists are jailed when ever they open their mouths.

Jordan: We have done nothing to Jordan, yet they hate us. They are a modern country led by a very good and fair man who wishes his monarchy to become more of a democracy.

Kuwait: Because we freed Kuwait from Saddam's clutches they are very frinedly to us, yet their is a substantial Radical element their that hates us.

Amongst all of this hate is a civilization that is failing under what has become their culture. They suffer from a disease. The restrictions on the free flow of information allows for control and emotional influence. The subjugation of women is, perhaps, the most suicidal aspect of this civilization. No civilization that prohibits half of their population from contributing, will ever be able to compete with civilizations that allow all of the population to contribute creativity and ideas to the greater potential of any society. After the exclusion of women from productive endeavors, the next worst wastage of human potential occurse where the extended family, clan, or tribe is the basic soacial unit. This type of exisitence does not build the rule of law, or democracy, or legitimate corporations, or free markets - a family member or sect member always trumps the better man for the job...the same goes for who gets the vote. Where blood ties rule, you cannot trust the contract, let alone the handshake. Blood ties produce notable family successes, but they do not produce competitive societies. The complete lack of universities and indeed, "world class" universities, shows us a low valuation of education. In societies imprisoned by dogmatic religions, or in which a caste or class system predetermines social and economic outcomes, higher education (and secular education in general) often has low prestige and poor content. Now we get to the heart of the problem - the domination by a restrictive religion.

Religion feeds a fundamental human appetite for meaning and security, and it can lead to powerful social unity and psychological assurance that trumps science. Untempered, it leads to xenophobia, backwardness, savagry, and economic failure. The more intense a religion is, the more powerful are its tendencies. In the decaying Arab world, Islam is the problem—because of the way bitter old men interpret and deform its more humane precepts while embracing its cruelest injunctions. The accusations leveled against us by terrified, embittered men fall upon the ears of those anxious for someone to blame for the ruin of their societies, for the local extermination of opportunities, and for the poverty guaranteed by the brute corruption of their compatriots and the perverted Mullahs throughout the region. As long as the "infidels" in the west flourish under an advanced, powerful, and progressing civilizations while the "true believers" stagnate in a failing civilization that faces backwards, they will hate us. We are everything that their religion looks down upon, yet our civilization prospers. The number one deadly and galvanizing strategic impulse in the world today is jealousy. And it's jealousy of the West in general, but specifically of the United States. Jealousy is a natural, deep human emotion, which afflicts us all in our personal lives--to some degree. But when it afflicts an entire civilization, it's tragic.

Radical Islam is the disease and terrorism is the symptom. We are largely a scapegoat, offerred up by the Arab and Persian elite to take the blame for what they have done to their own societies.

 

[cnredd]

okay, so substitute The West for everytime I said America, and tell me that it's incorrect. The fact is, there is no REASON why the Arab world hates America. There are many reasons, and vastly different reasons depending on who you ask. It's a question we must ask, but it will never be answered (unless foolishly) with one sentence.


You honestly believe that Islamic Immigrants are moving into western countries so they can set up armies from within?

Not armies as you intend...

They want to infiltrate the European populations to make it more Middle Eastern....

Think of this way...If you have a town made up of 50 Germans for generations, and 100 Russians moved in all at once, pretty soon that town will elect Russian represenatives, a Russian town council, and eventually a Russian Mayor...That 100% German town has lost its identity...

Europe's current situation will be MUCH worse, not only because of the identity(which is bad, but not that bad), but more because the IDEOLOGY of immigrants is different...

When person "A" goes to country "B", there is an expectation that some assimilation will happen...When in Rome, do what the Romans do....

That's not happening...

Imagine going to Japan, walking into a house, having the owner say, "In my country, it is tradition to remove your shoes when entering someone's house.", and having the guest say, "Screw you!...I'm not gonna do it...In my country, we leave our shoes on."

That's what happening in Europe...Middle Eastern culture does certain things certain ways, but instead of Europe saying, "Yes, but you're not in the Middle east anymore, so you gotta start doing things our way.", they're saying, "OK...will give up our generations of tradion and culture and start doing things your way."...

That's gonna come back to bite Europe in the ***...

 

[millsy]

You are correct, however, you are also absolutely wrong. They have many reasons to hate us, though those reasons only make sense to them. You just simply cannot comprehend it, because you have not been raised under the oppression of a single dogmatic controlling Religion. It is far too simple for people to blame it all on our foreign policies. I'll explain with a few countries....

I don't understand. Are you saying that there are many reasons that they hate us, or that the backwards society is the only reason they hate us?

I don't think you can simply dismiss the notion of the western world understanding things. We have proven over time to be quite intelligent and able to grasp many complex ideas. It will be very difficult, but that's never stopped us before.

 

[millsy]

That's what happening in Europe...Middle Eastern culture does certain things certain ways, but instead of Europe saying, "Yes, but you're not in the Middle east anymore, so you gotta start doing things our way.", they're saying, "OK...will give up our generations of tradion and culture and start doing things your way."...

That's gonna come back to bite Europe in the ***...

Having lived in Europe for the last 18 months or so, I will tell you that wherever I have gone I have found that to not be the case. The European people are fighting to have immigrants conform to their society and the immigrants are fighting to hold on to their own culture. One of the big catalysts in this fight is the new laws of the EU. The EU has immigration procedures that countries must adhere to if they want to be a member country. This forces some countries who formerly had ridiculously strict immigration policy to open their borders up just a little bit.

This means that immigration has changed in the last couple of years for many countries in Europe, and they're hitting a few roadblocks like any country does everytime they have a significant policy shift.

I have had many disagreements with European people who believe that immigrants should conform entirely to their new society, or go back where they came from. They are not lying down.

 

[Mr. D]

GySgt,

Do you think if the U.S. had not mettled in the Middle East for decades one day the Reactionary Islamic Extremists would have suddenly noticed the U.S. and attacked us out of pure jealousy for our economic success? Are the reasons that Osama Bin Ladin has given for his attacks on the U.S. just a cover up for simple jealousy! Seems rather odd from a brilliant, multimillionaire businessman who was instrumental in kicking the USSR out of Afganistan. Could you have over simplified their reasons for attacking us just a bit?

This sounds like the simplistic way Cheney explained it to George Bush! :roll:

 

[Mr. D]

Secondly on this point most of the lines in the Koran relating to the conversion of non-believers this usually does not mean Jews and Christians since all of them praise the same God. Again I really don't feel like looking it up, but in the Koran it states that people from Christianity and Jews need not be converted since they believe in the same god, though they are deceived. It will be Gods choice as to their moral character.

Granted Americans are not making themselves into bombs and blowing up people at random, instead we have the technology and the military capability to use different means.

One final thing we have to look at is when did the current state of unrest hit the Middle East. I would argue a big deal of it came with the recognition of Israel and the division of seperate states by the West.

My understanding is also that heathens would be spared in battle if they converted to Islam.

Your quotes that I left above need to be understood by more people! Nice to see that someone sees that there are two sides to this issue oversimplified by so many!

Good post!

 

[Mr. D]

cnredd,

I have to admit I enjoy your wise guy remarks. At least they have humor.

The only thing I found worth responding to in your fine, sensitive critique of my post, is your interpretation of the Bin Ladin Letter. Much of his writing as well as Bin ladin experts would not agree with your interpretation. Read that letter in the light of his being a reactionary fundamentalist Islamic fanatic. One could easily imagine many of America's far right, fundamentalist, envangelicals writing a letter to Iran or Iraq like that telling them that they need to find Jesus and accept all the teachings of the Bible! Fundamentalists come in many flavors! Do you ever listen to some of the fundamendalist nuts in this country? Asassinate governmental leaders and Tellitubbies are gay! Did you consider that might be an appeal to American Muslims attempting to create support and a split with Christian America. It's one of his main goals. I have no doubt Osama would like to convert the whole universe to Islam being the religious fanatic he is, but that is not the question. The question is about his motivation for his attacks. Greatly over simplified of course, his attacks are to get our influence out of the Middle East. He also has many other goals such as supporting Muslim movements in countries all over the world. Few know that he sent 6,000 battle harden troops to resist the Serbian ethnic cleansing of Muslims until the U.S. could get it's act together. Europe was going to stand there and watch a ethnic cleansing again! This time it would be Muslims instead of Jews.

Until next time,

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Mr. D:
GySgt,

Do you think if the U.S. had not mettled in the Middle East for decades one day the Reactionary Islamic Extremists would have suddenly noticed the U.S. and attacked us out of pure jealousy for our economic success? Are the reasons that Osama Bin Ladin has given for his attacks on the U.S. just a cover up for simple jealousy! Seems rather odd from a brilliant, multimillionaire businessman who was instrumental in kicking the USSR out of Afganistan. Could you have over simplified their reasons for attacking us just a bit?

This sounds like the simplistic way Cheney explained it to George Bush!

Now you've done it. Now he's going to give you about a 1000 words on why your 'obtuse' (whatever that means) and a 'simpleton'. Never bring the Gunny down to reality without paying the price of having to read one of his 'novel' rebuttals.

As for your post, that was a good one.

 

[MSgt]

I don't understand. Are you saying that there are many reasons that they hate us, or that the backwards society is the only reason they hate us?

I don't think you can simply dismiss the notion of the western world understanding things. We have proven over time to be quite intelligent and able to grasp many complex ideas. It will be very difficult, but that's never stopped us before.

The Middle Eastern civilization is failing. Much of the Arab world has withdrawn into a fortress of intolerance and self-righteousness as psychologically comfortable as it is practically destructive. Fundamentalists insist upon an historical stasis, but evolution in the architecture of faith has always been essential to, and reflective of, human progress. Certainty is comforting, but a religion’s capacity for adaptive behavior unleashes the energies necessary to renew both the faith and the society in which it flourishes. In the Middle East, where the narcotic of choice is blame, they have stagnated and have resisted the need to progress. The Muslim extremist from the Middle East has one consistent message: Return to the past, for that is what God wants. Beware, no matter his faith, of the man who presumes to tell you what God wants.

Aside from the zealots, we simply have Arab and Persian elite, whether politician or religious leader or both, who use such perversions of faith to remain in power.

The reason most of the west cannot understand it, is because they attempt to use logic to understand an illogical thing.

 

[Mr. D]

The Middle Eastern civilization is failing. Much of the Arab world has withdrawn into a fortress of intolerance and self-righteousness as psychologically comfortable as it is practically destructive. Fundamentalists insist upon an historical stasis, but evolution in the architecture of faith has always been essential to, and reflective of, human progress. Certainty is comforting, but a religion’s capacity for adaptive behavior unleashes the energies necessary to renew both the faith and the society in which it flourishes. In the Middle East, where the narcotic of choice is blame, they have stagnated and have resisted the need to progress. The Muslim extremist from the Middle East has one consistent message: Return to the past, for that is what God wants. Beware, no matter his faith, of the man who presumes to tell you what God wants.

Aside from the zealots, we simply have Arab and Persian elite, whether politician or religious leader or both, who use such perversions of faith to remain in power.

The reason most of the west cannot understand it, is because they attempt to use logic to understand an illogical thing.

You are right! Now explain your point to our Far Right Christian Fundamentalists Evangelicals ranting about Christianity being under attack as they bang at my door with a Bible in their hand!

 

[Mr. D]

Have you seen this Times article? I’d say it corroborates the Downing Street Memo language of, "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
Skip to next paragraph
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and President Bush arriving for a White House news conference on Jan. 31, 2003, after a meeting about Iraq that would be summarized in a memorandum by an adviser to Mr. Blair.
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage
Readers
Forum: The Transition in Iraq

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

 

[MSgt]

GySgt,

Do you think if the U.S. had not mettled in the Middle East for decades one day the Reactionary Islamic Extremists would have suddenly noticed the U.S. and attacked us out of pure jealousy for our economic success?

Sooner or later. What did Indonesia do to them? What did Jordan do to them? Your idea of our "meddling" is exxagerated. Our general crime in the Middle East has been our willingness to continue doing oil business with elite as we turn our backs to their designed oppression. If you study the Middle East, you will see that it does not matter who leads their countries. They all corrupt and they are all greedy. This is their cutlure and it is driven by a single dogmatic brutal religion. We are a scapegoat.

Are the reasons that Osama Bin Ladin has given for his attacks on the U.S. just a cover up for simple jealousy! Seems rather odd from a brilliant, multimillionaire businessman who was instrumental in kicking the USSR out of Afganistan. Could you have over simplified their reasons for attacking us just a bit?

No. I think you are over simplifying Bin Laden. I also think you have no idea of the different type of terrorists. Try no to hang on his words meant to soothe the American people as he slaughters and destroys. He is an "apocalyptic" terrorist and he is lost in a nightmare. Jealous of our success and our power in the western world, terrified and threatened by the free, unstructured nature of our societies, and incapable of performing competitively in the 21st century, they have convinced themselves that our way of life is satanic and that we are the enemies of their god. Nothing we can do will persuade them otherwise (it is a dangerous peculiarity of Americans that we can "explain everything" satisfactorily to those who hate us - apocalyptic terrorists and their masses of sympathizers don't want explanations, they want revenge.) They can live among us and see only evil, even as they hypocritically enjoy video games and prostitues. Their extreme vision of the world constructs evil even from good, and easily rationalizes away the virtues of other societies and civilizations. They cannot be reasoned with, appeased, or even intimidated. No human voice can persuade the man who believes that God is speaking in his other ear. The apocalyptic terrorist may seem to have explanations, even justifications, for his attacks. He "wants the U.S. and Zions out of all Islamic countries," or reviles the invasive corruption of the West, or desires the establishment of a Palestinian state. But upon closer inspection, all these relatively rational purposes begin to blur and dissolve (Zarqawi slaughters secular Muslims.) The apocalyptic terrorist is also a coward. Most are not suicidal and are not so eager to blow himself up, yet cheer for those who are. It is impossible to content the apocalyptic terrorist. His agenda is against the world, not of it. Viewed closely, his vision is incohate, intuitive and destructive without limit. It is reality that has not pleased him, and he wants to destroy it. There is no greater blasphemer in any religion than the killer who appoints himself as "God's" agent, or assumes a godlike right to judge entire populations for himself. Pretending to defend his religion, he creates a vengeful splinter religion of his own.

This sounds like the simplistic way Cheney explained it to George Bush! :roll:

I wouldn't know. I guess you have a desk in the White House and would know such things. Perhaps you justy simply lack any real knowledge on the subject and because you cannot comprehend the words of those of us who have studied this topic in depth, you have only enough strength to take Bin Laden at his word and roll your eyes? Look into it. The study material goes way back before President Bush sat in the White House. Modern day Islamic Radicalsim gets it's roots from The Muslim Brotherhood which was created in 1929.

 

[MSgt]

You are right! Now explain your point to our Far Right Christian Fundamentalists Evangelicals ranting about Christianity being under attack as they bang at my door with a Bible in their hand!

Until the big bad Christian fundamentalists begin organizing into organizations that kidnap, destroy, murder and slaughter, all while reciting scriptures in the Bible.....I wouldn't worry about it. There is no way you can rationalize Radical Islam away or appease it.

 

[MSgt]

Now you've done it. Now he's going to give you about a 1000 words on why your 'obtuse' (whatever that means) and a 'simpleton'. Never bring the Gunny down to reality without paying the price of having to read one of his 'novel' rebuttals.

As for your post, that was a good one.

One, his post had good questions.

Two, I speak on behalf of reality. You speak on behalf of mundane idealogue whines. Haven't we established this already?

 

[MSgt]

Have you seen this Times article? I’d say it corroborates the Downing Street Memo language of, "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

Bush Was Set on Path to War, Memo by British Adviser Says

By DON VAN NATTA Jr.
Published: March 27, 2006

LONDON — In the weeks before the United States-led invasion of Iraq, as the United States and Britain pressed for a second United Nations resolution condemning Iraq, President Bush's public ultimatum to Saddam Hussein was blunt: Disarm or face war.
Skip to next paragraph
Doug Mills/The New York Times

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain and President Bush arriving for a White House news conference on Jan. 31, 2003, after a meeting about Iraq that would be summarized in a memorandum by an adviser to Mr. Blair.
The Reach of War
Go to Complete Coverage
Readers
Forum: The Transition in Iraq

But behind closed doors, the president was certain that war was inevitable. During a private two-hour meeting in the Oval Office on Jan. 31, 2003, he made clear to Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain that he was determined to invade Iraq without the second resolution, or even if international arms inspectors failed to find unconventional weapons, said a confidential memo about the meeting written by Mr. Blair's top foreign policy adviser and reviewed by The New York Times.

"Our diplomatic strategy had to be arranged around the military planning," David Manning, Mr. Blair's chief foreign policy adviser at the time, wrote in the memo that summarized the discussion between Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair and six of their top aides.

"The start date for the military campaign was now penciled in for 10 March," Mr. Manning wrote, paraphrasing the president. "This was when the bombing would begin."

The timetable came at an important diplomatic moment. Five days after the Bush-Blair meeting, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was scheduled to appear before the United Nations to present the American evidence that Iraq posed a threat to world security by hiding unconventional weapons.

Although the United States and Britain aggressively sought a second United Nations resolution against Iraq — which they failed to obtain — the president said repeatedly that he did not believe he needed it for an invasion.

Stamped "extremely sensitive," the five-page memorandum, which was circulated among a handful of Mr. Blair's most senior aides, had not been made public. Several highlights were first published in January in the book "Lawless World," which was written by a British lawyer and international law professor, Philippe Sands. In early February, Channel 4 in London first broadcast several excerpts from the memo.

Since then, The New York Times has reviewed the five-page memo in its entirety. While the president's sentiments about invading Iraq were known at the time, the previously unreported material offers an unfiltered view of two leaders on the brink of war, yet supremely confident.

The memo indicates the two leaders envisioned a quick victory and a transition to a new Iraqi government that would be complicated, but manageable. Mr. Bush predicted that it was "unlikely there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups." Mr. Blair agreed with that assessment.

The memo also shows that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation, including a proposal to paint a United States surveillance plane in the colors of the United Nations in hopes of drawing fire, or assassinating Mr. Hussein.

Those proposals were first reported last month in the British press, but the memo does not make clear whether they reflected Mr. Bush's extemporaneous suggestions, or were elements of the government's plan.

Consistent Remarks

Two senior British officials confirmed the authenticity of the memo, but declined to talk further about it, citing Britain's Official Secrets Act, which made it illegal to divulge classified information. But one of them said, "In all of this discussion during the run-up to the Iraq war, it is obvious that viewing a snapshot at a certain point in time gives only a partial view of the decision-making process."

On Sunday, Frederick Jones, the spokesman for the National Security Council, said the president's public comments were consistent with his private remarks made to Mr. Blair. "While the use of force was a last option, we recognized that it might be necessary and were planning accordingly," Mr. Jones said.

"The public record at the time, including numerous statements by the President, makes clear that the administration was continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution into 2003," he said. "Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, but he chose continued defiance, even after being given one final opportunity to comply or face serious consequences. Our public and private comments are fully consistent."

The January 2003 memo is the latest in a series of secret memos produced by top aides to Mr. Blair that summarize private discussions between the president and the prime minister. Another group of British memos, including the so-called Downing Street memo written in July 2002, showed that some senior British officials had been concerned that the United States was determined to invade Iraq, and that the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" by the Bush administration to fit its desire to go to war.

......and?