Does U.S. Foreign Policy bear any responsibilty for the rise of Islamic Extremism

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Quote:

"If you think you can justify the invasion of Vietnam through the logic of anti-communism, then I am sorry but you are a barbarian. The NLF were the only political entity in South Vietnam with popular support. If the re-unification election in the South had taken place they would have swept to power easily. Of course this did not support U.S. interests so due to lack of political support in the country, a campaign of violence ensued for nearly a decade. The population of South Vietnam wanted the NLF, and they were abused and slaughtered by the U.S. and the puppet regime it installed after the invasion. So does the United States have the right to tell indigenous populations living thousands of miles away who they can vote for. Does it have the right to invade when a political party it doesn't like gains popular support and stands up to the terrorist armies and the increasingly violent Diem government that the U.S. has been funding. Is this the lesser of two evils? A brutal totalitarian government with little popular support, over a party pledging land reform and self-governance. No it is not, this is picking the side that will serve U.S. interests best and the indigenous peoples be damned."

First off North Vietnam invaded South Vietnam we simply came to the aid of an ally, your revisionist history books I'm sure will tell you different, but let's consider the source, secondly I not only justify the war on the pretense of fighting communist aggression but also by the actions taken by the North Vietnamese after the U.S. withdrawal. E.G. the slaughter of thousands of S. Vietnamese officials who were sympathetic to the U.S., you say it wasn't communist expansion, well tell that to the millions slaughtered in the Cambodian genocide. The South Vietnamese gov't was no pet prize either that's probably why we supported the, coup against, and assasination of their so called 'president,' Diem which brought us into the conflict in the first place, thank Kennedy for that one.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Quote:

And if you were to say to any U.S. State Dept. official (including Eisenhowers)that the reason for such heavy interventions in the Middle East were due to the spread of international communism, he would laugh in your face my friend. As they would then have to kindly explain to you, while patting you gently on the back and calling you a 'poor boy', the only reason the U.S. is interested in the middle east is oil. I always thought this a fairly uncontroversial claim yet your post doesn't seem to mention it at all. Well the evidence I have posted on this site is more than enough to demonstrate that from the end of WWII U.S. intervention has been heavy, clumsy and in some cases, astronomical. Soviet intervention has been light, delicate and minimal though, with the obvious exception being the invasion of Afghanistan, a fatal blunder on their part, and viciously fought by (successful) U.S. funded terrorist armies, which then proceeded to start blowing up the middle east and most recently perpetrating the atrocities of September 11th. Perhaps the Soviets had a better grasp of the geo-political climate of the region, and they knew that intervention would be a decidedly difficult game to play, conventional thinking in Europe at the time reflects the situation. It still didn't stop Britain and France from creating Israel though it has to be asked if they had planned to set it up as the dominant miitary power in the region. Either way, the U.S. ignored the subtlties and pitfalls of the region and it's politics, blustered in, made a big mess and now it's feeling the altogether negative impact.

Academia has brain washed you well my friend. Why would Eisenhower laugh at me? During the cold war all U.S. interventions can be traced to stopping the spread of communism from the Bay of Pigs to the war in Vietnam to the U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. "I always thought that the U.S. interventions in the Mid East were about oil."_You (Well if you say it than it must be true)LMFAO. I'll grant you that members of the state department may have laughed at me (the ones who were in fact soviet agent infiltrators). I also just noticed that you claimed that most Soviet interventions were to check Israeli aggression. Ha ha, now you've done it Israel is my specialty. Perhaps this aggression was when the arab states of Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria simultaneously attacked Israel after they declared their independence on May 15, 1948. Soviet support and intervention was light? They backed Nasser and Saddat in wars against Israel. The first was in 1967 when upon false Soviet reports of an Israeli military build up on the Syrian border Egyptian troops once again move into the Sinai and close Israel's only trade root to the eastern world the straights of Tiran. The Soviets back Egypt with military, logistical, and technological support. In 73 again backed by the Soviets the Syrians and Egyptians (now under Saddat) launch a coordinated attack against Israel. After the Israelis counterattack which destroys the Egyptian army and encircles the Syrian's, putting the Israelis in a position to take the Egyptian and Syrian capitols of Cairo and Demascus, the Soviets threaten a military intervention. (light intervention indeed). I don't recall the U.S. ever threatening to intervene militarily in an Israeli arab conflict do you? The Soviets also had close ties with Iran after the nationalist militant Mohammed Mossadeq forced Iranian parliament to nationalize the oil industry the Soviets also supplied Saddam Hussein with a nuclear reactor.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

the statement I made of the Soviets supplying Iraq with nuclear tech demanded more investigation when I remembered that it was in fact the French who supplied Iraq with the Osiris reactor, this is what I found the Soviets were the first to supply Iraq with a nuclear tech in 1959 with a reactor, enriched uranium, and necessary scientists and engineers, this reactor went operational in 68 and in 71 the Soviets upgraded the reactors output from two to five megawatts, so I stick by my original comment.

 

[MSgt]

There are plenty of reasons and excuses to be thrown around on where America and Europe messed up, but they only serve as a crutch for them to lean on when they need to explain away thier own self-inflicted problems. At the heart of it lies a certain truth - We defend Israel's right to exist. We do the same for many nations all around the globe.

1) Israel claims land because it was a gift from God (Not to mention that they were recognized in 1949 by the UN because of sypmathized feelings towards the Jews.)

2) The Arabs claim land because it was a gift from Allah.

Despite Israel's bold and historical attempts to make some peace between the two by pulling out of the Gaza strip and giving it back to the Palestinians, we will indoubtadly continue to see violence from the extremists, because we still stand between Israel and the Muslim world. We are simply caught up in their religious BS. Anything else merely shadows the heart of the matter.

A more personal reason for extremism is their failing civilization. They can thank their own version of Islam for that. In the Middle East, the heavens are falling, and the Earth is wracked by failure. The result was predictable, had we been willing to open our eyes. History has seen human beings react to cultural crises by fleeing into cults that sought revenge. Instead of returning to a "pure" Islam, the terrorists are building a blood cult, a deformed offshoot of their faith that revives the most primitive and grotesque of religious practices that many other religions have partaken throughout history. This crisis has never been as intense as in the Middle East, where treasured values and inherited behaviors simply do not work in the 21st century.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

the statement I made of the Soviets supplying Iraq with nuclear tech demanded more investigation when I remembered that it was in fact the French who supplied Iraq with the Osiris reactor, this is what I found the Soviets were the first to supply Iraq with a nuclear tech in 1959 with a reactor, enriched uranium, and necessary scientists and engineers, this reactor went operational in 68 and in 71 the Soviets upgraded the reactors output from two to five megawatts, so I stick by my original comment.

But it was not Saddam Hussein they supplied the reactor to he hadn't taken power yet so I retract that statement and replace Saddam Hussein with Iraq.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

I fail to see the relevance of your remarks to the subject under discussion. In no way can any of my posts be constued as being apologetic, and in no way do I think the terrorists are fighting for freedom and liberty. Such accusations are ludicrous and the content of your post is so far from any of the points I have made, I am fairly sure you have not read any of my posts.

I am attempting to understand, and I hope the rest of you are as well, the effect U.S. policy has had upon the region, in a hope of finding the 'root causes' of such atrocities as 9/11 and the London Bombing. The end result of which would, I hope, be a way of combatting these causes and reducing the level of violence in the world as well as promoting the concepts of freedom and liberty.

You seem to be taking offense where none was given. I wasn't referring to you....and I fail to see where my remarks are irrelevant. The topic was "Does US foreign policy bear responsibility".

It wasn't a rebuttal. It was an opinion. This IS an opinion poll, is it not?

I didn't say your posts were apologetic, I don't pretend to know how you think, and my "ludicrous accusations" are a figment of your imagination.

Now it's my turn to tell you that I'm fairly sure you haven't read what I wrote.

 

[MSgt]

While America has been shady and will undoubtedly continue to be so, because there are so many factors to be considered with diplomacy that it isn’t black and white, many people have taken this way too far. The mass murder of 2 million Christians in Sudan, the murder of American civilians for over a fifty year span, the murder of civilians in Bali, the murder of Brits in England, and the murder of Spaniards in Spain by men that use their religion as a right to inflict harm on others is a despicable crime against humanity itself.

People around the world make this very distinct mistake collectively…..they are over concerning themselves with how “U.S. Foreign Policy bears responsibility for the rise of Islamic Extremism.” The fanaticism of the Islamic fundamentalist is not confined to killinig infidels from America. They (with Bin-Laden’s and Zarqawi’s help) murdered over two million black Christians in the Sudan over a ten year period. They slaughter their own because they are not of the same tribe and then they justify it through “divine” intervention on earth. Are so many people so self-centered that they will refuse to realize that this is a problem for all non Muslims and all Muslims of “lesser” faith?


Exonerating these men and their acts of bigotry, hatred, and racism, by blaming American foreign policy has got to be the most pathetic form of denial. By not facing the problem and blaming themselves, the problem will persist. They will not go away, because apologosts said sorry. They will not go away because we accept total blame for what they do. And they will not go away, because we “understand” their pain. They will continue to blame America for their problems and people around the world will continue to give them their scapegoat by finding new ways in which to feed their blame game. These are fanatics and every religion has had their dark history in the past. Islam is having theirs now….and what are we doing about it? ….Splitting the community in half by refusing to face it for what it is and trying to find ways to blame ourselves.

 

[MiamiFlorida]

While America has been shady and will undoubtedly continue to be so, because there are so many factors to be considered with diplomacy that it isn’t black and white, many people have taken this way too far. The mass murder of 2 million Christians in Sudan, the murder of American civilians for over a fifty year span, the murder of civilians in Bali, the murder of Brits in England, and the murder of Spaniards in Spain by men that use their religion as a right to inflict harm on others is a despicable crime against humanity itself.

People around the world make this very distinct mistake collectively…..they are over concerning themselves with how “U.S. Foreign Policy bears responsibility for the rise of Islamic Extremism.” The fanaticism of the Islamic fundamentalist is not confined to killinig infidels from America. They (with Bin-Laden’s and Zarqawi’s help) murdered over two million black Christians in the Sudan over a ten year period. They slaughter their own because they are not of the same tribe and then they justify it through “divine” intervention on earth. Are so many people so self-centered that they will refuse to realize that this is a problem for all non Muslims and all Muslims of “lesser” faith?


Exonerating these men and their acts of bigotry, hatred, and racism, by blaming American foreign policy has got to be the most pathetic form of denial. By not facing the problem and blaming themselves, the problem will persist. They will not go away, because apologosts said sorry. They will not go away because we accept total blame for what they do. And they will not go away, because we “understand” their pain. They will continue to blame America for their problems and people around the world will continue to give them their scapegoat by finding new ways in which to feed their blame game. These are fanatics and every religion has had their dark history in the past. Islam is having theirs now….and what are we doing about it? ….Splitting the community in half by refusing to face it for what it is and trying to find ways to blame ourselves.

Well said.

Lead, follow, or get out of the way.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
At the heart of it lies a certain truth - We defend Israel's right to exist. We do the same for many nations all around the globe.

Except Iraq and Afganistan.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

While America has been shady and will undoubtedly continue to be so, because there are so many factors to be considered with diplomacy that it isn’t black and white, many people have taken this way too far. The mass murder of 2 million Christians in Sudan, the murder of American civilians for over a fifty year span, the murder of civilians in Bali, the murder of Brits in England, and the murder of Spaniards in Spain by men that use their religion as a right to inflict harm on others is a despicable crime against humanity itself.

People around the world make this very distinct mistake collectively…..they are over concerning themselves with how “U.S. Foreign Policy bears responsibility for the rise of Islamic Extremism.” The fanaticism of the Islamic fundamentalist is not confined to killinig infidels from America. They (with Bin-Laden’s and Zarqawi’s help) murdered over two million black Christians in the Sudan over a ten year period. They slaughter their own because they are not of the same tribe and then they justify it through “divine” intervention on earth. Are so many people so self-centered that they will refuse to realize that this is a problem for all non Muslims and all Muslims of “lesser” faith?


Exonerating these men and their acts of bigotry, hatred, and racism, by blaming American foreign policy has got to be the most pathetic form of denial. By not facing the problem and blaming themselves, the problem will persist. They will not go away, because apologosts said sorry. They will not go away because we accept total blame for what they do. And they will not go away, because we “understand” their pain. They will continue to blame America for their problems and people around the world will continue to give them their scapegoat by finding new ways in which to feed their blame game. These are fanatics and every religion has had their dark history in the past. Islam is having theirs now….and what are we doing about it? ….Splitting the community in half by refusing to face it for what it is and trying to find ways to blame ourselves.

Good point apologists who rationalize acts of terror = sympathisers and enablers. Secondly I would like to add this analogy, the people who try to rationalize the Islamic fascists actions by commenting on unjust U.S. foriegn policy in the Mid-East in my opinion fall under the same category as those who rationalized Hitler's actions due to the unfair conditions of the Versaiss treaty following ww1. Both of these arguments should fall under deaf ears to anyone with the slightest thread of intellect.

 

[MSgt]

Except Iraq and Afganistan.

I don't follow. You reference two (almost) seperate events from the topic. Afghanistan was a direct retaliation to 9/11. Iraq was an act to get rid of a tyrant and, what was, a possible WMD threat and, what was, an absolute future threat. Over 20 million Muslims in Iraq and millions more in Afghanistan happened to have also been liberated along the way. Both, by the way, still goes back to their perversions of Islam and their use of it to terrorize other people, not to mention their own. Your four worded sentence implies that they are mad at us for our latest retaliatiory endeavor. Their issues go back way further than that. You're still refusing to face facts.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by GySgt:
I don't follow. You reference two (almost) seperate events from the topic. Afghanistan was a direct retaliation to 9/11. Iraq was an act to get rid of a tyrant and, what was, a possible WMD threat and, what was, an absolute future threat. Over 20 million Muslims in Iraq and millions more in Afghanistan happened to have also been liberated along the way. Both, by the way, still goes back to their perversions of Islam and their use of it to terrorize other people, not to mention their own. Your four worded sentence implies that they are mad at us for our latest retaliatiory endeavor. Their issues go back way further than that. You're still refusing to face facts.

Afganistan did not attack us on 9/11. And Iraq was not a threat to anyone. They barely had running water and electricity. Even today, they only have about 8 hours of power per day. And Hans Blix final report said they did not have WMD's since 1992. They also had no infrastructure to even make them, given their current [at the time of the report] situation.

 

[MSgt]

Al-Queda attacked America often and was protected by the Tali Ban which had control of Afghanistan. 9/11 wasn't the first attack. It happens to have been the first attack on civilians which, made America to finally seem to care.

Despite the WMD fix you refuse to let go....the Iraqi people needed liberation and got it. They are better off now than they were under Saddam. The situation is not as bad as you let on and the recent "trampoling" of the Shi'ites is proof of life as a powerless Islamic in the Middle East and the fear they have from their own zealots. They were abused and murdered on a whim under Saddam. Does any of this matter to you? No....there was no WMD and your personal safety is what matters.

It's like you have a brick wall in front of your face and you are too comfortable to break through it. You will not find the concrete evidence you seem to want. Common sense and a history of Islamic violence towards us is where you continue to fail yourself. Iraq is very much a part of the oppressive problem in the Middle East.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

pakistan was supported since the beginning of the cold-war. Saudi Arabia is one of the top islamic extremist states in the mid-east, and if you think public executions are a high standard of living then sure....



In regards to foreign policy, Britain was probably the leading cause of the mess in that region. But today the US has pretty much taken over Britain's legacy in a much more subtle manner. The superpower before was Britain, but we can safely say that the superpower today is the US. A lot of mid-easterns see the US presence in the Mid-East not much different from the previous European imperialists.

Notice I said relatively speaking, in relation to the Mid-East regimes that the U.S. doesn't support their standards of living are quite high, and as for public executions, is that limited to U.S. backed Mid-East Regimes? I think not. Furthermore, we should step up pressure for democratic reform in the region which I believe we are doing eg Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and our continous pressure mounted against Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Syria . . . take a look a few posts back and see what King Hussein had to say on the situation of democratic reform, I couldn't have said it anybetter.

That being said, you missed my point entirely, that is that, U.S foriegn policy is based on pragmatism (maybe you don't know what that word means?) Free Trade and Friendship with all and entangled alliances with none. Seems like a pretty accurate depiction of U.S. foriegn policy to me and a good one at that.

 

[MSgt]

"That being said, you missed my point entirely, that is that, U.S foriegn policy is based on pragmatism (maybe you don't know what that word means?) Free Trade and Friendship with all and entangled alliances with none. Seems like a pretty accurate depiction of U.S. foriegn policy to me and a good one at that."

This is exactly so. Our lives are built on this and our freedoms are provided by our government's security through these means. Many do not like it, but I've noticed thet they still bask in the lifestyle and freedom it provides.

 

[freethought6t9]

While America has been shady and will undoubtedly continue to be so, because there are so many factors to be considered with diplomacy that it isn’t black and white, many people have taken this way too far. The mass murder of 2 million Christians in Sudan, the murder of American civilians for over a fifty year span, the murder of civilians in Bali, the murder of Brits in England, and the murder of Spaniards in Spain by men that use their religion as a right to inflict harm on others is a despicable crime against humanity itself.

People around the world make this very distinct mistake collectively…..they are over concerning themselves with how “U.S. Foreign Policy bears responsibility for the rise of Islamic Extremism.” The fanaticism of the Islamic fundamentalist is not confined to killinig infidels from America. They (with Bin-Laden’s and Zarqawi’s help) murdered over two million black Christians in the Sudan over a ten year period. They slaughter their own because they are not of the same tribe and then they justify it through “divine” intervention on earth. Are so many people so self-centered that they will refuse to realize that this is a problem for all non Muslims and all Muslims of “lesser” faith?


Exonerating these men and their acts of bigotry, hatred, and racism, by blaming American foreign policy has got to be the most pathetic form of denial. By not facing the problem and blaming themselves, the problem will persist. They will not go away, because apologosts said sorry. They will not go away because we accept total blame for what they do. And they will not go away, because we “understand” their pain. They will continue to blame America for their problems and people around the world will continue to give them their scapegoat by finding new ways in which to feed their blame game. These are fanatics and every religion has had their dark history in the past. Islam is having theirs now….and what are we doing about it? ….Splitting the community in half by refusing to face it for what it is and trying to find ways to blame ourselves.

Well your argument has only one flaw. It doesn't tkae into account genocid:doh e committed by others, including our allies. Sure it doesn't discount it, but it doesn't mention it. And you also don't go into how Sudanese Muslims took power and became a militarily superior in the country. Now I don't know, but I do know that the U.S. has supported Muslim regimes in the country. I don't seek to 'exonerate' anybody. I simply want to look past the horror to see where it came from. What you are doing is simply charting the acts committed by Islamic extremists and then going "how is that our fault?". Well you know, you know full well what America has done, and continues to do.

As to freedom, well yes U.S. foreign policy allows Americans and Europeans to bask in the freedom to buy almost anything we want, to go to McDonalds any time of the day, drink a fresh bottle of water whenever we want, free to walk down the street without fear, of terrorists, soldiers, our own government (for the most part anyway). How many Africans, or Arabs, or Salvadorans or so many others around the world have these freedoms? They're blood sweat and tears pays for our lifestyle, not American ingenuity or any other comfortable myths, but slavery, genocide and imperialism have long been and continue to be the cornerstone of Western success.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

O.K. When I'm a little drunk I turn slightly liberal,

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When I'm drunk I'm a follower of Martial Mathers!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When I'm wasted I'm an anarcho capitolist!

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When I'm high I'm a neo-con.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

When my mind is clear I'm a paleo-consrvative and a Libertarian.

 

[freethought6t9]

Your life expectancy is longer if you are a Palestinian than Saudi. And the Soviet threat was constantly overblown.

The North Vietnamese didn't invade South Vietnam! The U.S. did. The 'Viet Cong' or Viet Minh or more accurately the National Liberation Front were a South Vietnamese group who had been under attack from U.S. backed terrorists for nearly a decade. They were the also the only political force with any kind of popular support. The reason the U.S. had blocked the '56 election was because the NLF would have swept it and Vietnam may have re-unified peaceably. So the U.S. stopped the election, began a proxy terrorist war against the population in the 50's, began bombing in the early 60's and eventually invaded in 1965. Why? To prevent a political party which garners mass popular support (50% of the population, thats people not voters, more than Washington got, and definetely more than Bush) from gaining power and inititiating such policies as land reform.

At some point during U.S. attack the NLF had begun fighting back, it had previously sought negotiation, in fact most parties within Vietnam sought negotiation, the people, the NLF, the army, the U.S. puppet government, but not the U.S. Couldn't hack no Land Reform. Then the U.S. began waging a war against South Vietnam, destroying villages and killing South Vietnamese people, like the 'VC', which was in fact an insurgency, just like the one in Iraq, but one which has huge popular support. The U.S. also began attacking the North Vietnamese, who were I supppose communists. And they did recieve Chinese aid and support. So maybe your attack on them was justified, but it wasn't really much like the U.S. attacks on South Vietnam. Of course the media blamed the loss on 'tactics' and even in the end the U.S. had attacked a country because the majority of the people were in favour of policies and governments detrimental to U.S. interests, not Communists, socialists perhaps, or even social democrats, but once again the U.S. media was incredibly aquiescent to the "needs of Government".

You can find the same sort of tactics at work in other places, the most notable example being Central America, although Indochina remains the most potent and downright atrocious example. Rather than go into Soviet intervention in the Middle East, I would refer you to not only my previous comments but specifically the first article I posted. You seem a little confused about Egyptian attacks on Israel, and Israeli 'counter-attacks'. The War of Independence as well, is not quite as simple as you make out. This article was quite succinct on some of the 'finer' points in the history of the conflict although there are many other sources.

Soviet aid to Egypt was just another manipulation of the U.S. Egypt had sought to buy arms from the U.S. but they wouldn't make any political concessions to the U.S. and were refused. So they approached the U.S.S.R. and were sold arms without any such provisions. It's all in the article, but as I say it is a stricly non-revisionist viewpoint, being accurate. The U.S. liked this kind of thing because it became such good propaganda, after all if another country, which affirms it's neutrality is buying weapons of your enemy and not you, then it must be an enemy. An example of this Chomsky is always keen to point out is the MiGs to Nicaragua, although these never really existed.

No, I really can't accept that U.S. foreign policy has ever really been about communism, the more you look at each case, tou see a strong popular support for such fundamentals as self-governance and the concept that the resources of a country should benefit citizens. Nationalisation of Industry, Land Reform in agricultural communities, as well as other basic amenities and rights such as education and healthcare. Freedoms and liberties we in the West take for granted but are sorely absent in many places of the world. So is it justifiable that the U.S. is responsible for continuing this repression and indeed violence, the denial of basic human needs and the demands of at least significant pluralities and in some case overwhelming majorities on the grounds that someone else may seek to do the same? This to me was the cornerstone of success in many U.S. interventions. The conclusion seems to be that it wasn't Soviet influence U.S. policymakers were afraid of, it was indigenous support for economic policies 'incompatible' with 'U.S. style democracy' and 'free markets' that necessitated the meddlesome actions of the West. The ignorance of previous imperial European attitudes was perhaps understandable, the concept of 'natural children' may indeed be a hideous one, but it was borne out of a general ignorance of the population, of foreign lands and cultures, sciences and other contemporary knowledge was seemingly insurmountable.

Today this is not the case, the 'global village' may be an exaggeration, but we in the West have access to a vast wealth of information that is purely staggering. Our enslavement to such rigid concepts and the global enforcement of such concepts are unacceptable. The world is a vast and varied place, with ideologies, beliefs and traditions too numerous to even begin to mention. American hegemony seeks to destroy this, it really is as simple as that. The question is; is it right? And the answer, I would say unequivocally, every time, is no, it's not right.

 

[freethought6t9]

Mccarthiasm wasn't paranoia my friend.

Seriously? McCarthyism wasn't paranoia? Do people still actually argue about this? I mean the Soviet infiltration of the CIA and State Dept. are one thing (You can be sure the U.S. had agents in the KGB, the politburo, the military etc.) but McCarthyism was about a full blown communist infiltration of American society wasn't it? And weren't Soviet infiltrations of the U.S. predominantly later than the 50's? And how did Arthur Miller figure in all of this?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Seriously? McCarthyism wasn't paranoia? Do people still actually argue about this? I mean the Soviet infiltration of the CIA and State Dept. are one thing (You can be sure the U.S. had agents in the KGB, the politburo, the military etc.) but McCarthyism was about a full blown communist infiltration of American society wasn't it? And weren't Soviet infiltrations of the U.S. predominantly later than the 50's? And how did Arthur Miller figure in all of this?

By your own words you admitted to the Soviet infiltration into the CIA and the State Department, is the Soviet infiltration of Academia and the indoctrination of U.S. youth really that much of a stretch for you? Just ask why the right questions academia it's not a paranoid delusion my friend.

I'm not religious right either I'm probably the best friend you f'n libs have I'm not a useful idiot and I hate Trotskyite infiltration and the Neo-COns! But you're still useful idiots serving the same purpose of the Neo-cons without even knowing it, it's sad your brain washed.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Conservative in views, radical in expression, how are you lib rads gonna handle people like me? We're the unkown variable, and the silent majority! Ha ha, we're actually pretty vocal now na na.