Redstate

Which is always a start.

The enemy never runs out of people until one day it does. That's how war is.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

But there is little evidence that terrorists can be beaten with attritional warfare unless you also wipe out their support base which I think it unlikely.

Palestine is a tiny country yet they've been churning out terrorists for 30 years.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

But if you feel that's the way to solve the problem...

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And when they're done, move them to the West Bank.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

pink.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

Mocking a little twit with an invincibility complex is fairly low on that list.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

the saying, "De mortuis, nihil nisi bonum."

------------
This kind of liberty is, indeed, but another name for justice; ascertained by wise laws, and secured by well-constructed institutions.

-Edmund Burke

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

While you're there, would you pick up some cigarettes for me? Thanks.

We've traded our National Sovereignty for cheap roofing and yardwork.

I've sinned some, but nothing terrible, so I think I'm going to Heck.

to nip the "Well Stalin did it" argument in the bud but my wording was really poor.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

Ok. You're right. It isn't a country. It is a territory that is harshly ruled over by the Israelis.

How does that change my point in any way?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

It's actually a territory that is harshly ruled over by Palestinians. They'd be a hell of a lot better off if the Israelis did run things.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Israel occupies territory because if she doesn't then enemies use that same territory to attack. For proof look at Lebanon. That was a twenty year miserable occupation but an even more miserable war. Hezbollah used the very land once occupied by Israel to launch rockets at Israel. Hamas does the same thing in Gaza now.

People like you and propagandists are then always there to blame Israel for the "miserable occupation" but there is no other Choice. The protection of your citizenry is the most important role of government. Unfortunately Israel has no Choice but to undertake these long occupations or face never ending attacks from its enemies.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Whenever the word Israel is used you guys feel some kneejerk need to defend them. I wasn't criticizing them. They are doing what they have to do.

But they have done nothing to eliminate terrorism.

How bout we stick to the point.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

A good start would be reducing the West Bank and Gaza to parking lots.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

"harshly ruled over" is freaking endearing!...you're right, you wern't criticizing them!

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

if we don't perform, they don't pay.

Seriously, Israel itself has conceded its long occupations were a failure. Trouble is, the various Palestinian factions and their Syrian/Iranian/Saudi patrons have failed at making peace and excel at making trouble.

Don't say you weren't criticizing Israel when you describe them as ruling "harshly" over the Palestinians.

Next step in your mind was surely: if there were no "occupation", there would be no suicide bombings and rocket launchings.

I've seen your views on Israel before in other diaries. You fly to the defense of men like Nasser while condemning men like Sharon.

How about you lay off Israel and we'll stick to the point.

www.win-the-war.com.

it's Fun and Games with Flyerhawk! Boy, isn't it fun?..

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

true, true...

(actually, flyer sometimes makes good points on other questions. that's one reason why his views on israel are especially irritating.)

www.win-the-war.com.

defended. Palestinian just happens to be the flavor of the day.

I love terrorism against the United States. Being 200 feet from the last major terrorist attack and nearly dying wasn't enough to deter my love of terrorism. And living and working here in New York certainly isn't enough either.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

The Israelis did rule harshly and still impose extremely harsh import economic restrictions on the region. I understand why they do this and I don't think they are wrong to do so, per se.

The occupation certainly doesn't help matters but the blood feud between the two is far too great to simply go away because Israel leaves the occupied lands.

I personally believe I have a pretty dispassionate view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I may come off as anti-Israel here because the overwhelming opinion of RS is that Israel shouldn't be criticized and Palestine shouldn't be defended in any way. That is far too extreme for. If I were to place blame for that crisis I would put it down at something like...

50% The Arab community along with the clerics of Iran. They have used this conflict for their own purposes for the past 50 years without offering a ounce of real support for Palestine.
30% Palestine - Their leaders have completely failed the people. They continue to ignore the fact that terrorism will never get them what they want.
20% Israel - Israel contributing this problem with their land grabs of the 4 big wars, particularly 56 and 67.

As for Nasser the only "good" thing I have ever said about him was that I don't think he would have EVER invaded Israel and that it was Amir that seemed to be the real antagonist.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

first you claim the Palestinians are mistreated by the Israelis and then say you have nothing against Israel. Boy, you certainly made the accusation though. As to your point, it is impossible for a country the size of Rhode Island with about ten million in population to ever rid the whole world of terrorism. That doesn't mean their methods are not effective in limiting. Terrorists were bombing Israeli cities weekly until Israel stopped tit of tat bombing and took out the entire refugee camp of Jenin. While roundly condemned by the Western world, the reality was that they destroyed and killed a major part of the terrorist base by doing it. Hamas has never been the same again.

Egypt and Jordan now have peace treaties with Israel and that was after humliating and devastating losses in wars. All throughout Israel's history it has been proven that capitulation and weakness spawn terrorism and wars against it and heavy handedness and strong counter attacks lessen attacks against it.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

first you claim the Palestinians are mistreated by the Israelis and then say you have nothing against Israel. Boy, you certainly made the accusation though

These 2 statements are, in no way, in conflict. I support the Israelis. I also recognize that they have acted harshly towards the Palestinian people. Bombing a refugee camp is more than just harsh. It may be necessary for them to do so but if you don't think that killing women and children is harsh I don't know what to tell you.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

the only thing the other post said was harsh there was no mention of necessary. You can be coy all you want, but when you only present one side of a two sided story, it is obvious where your biases lie. They didn't kill women and children. The terrorists hid among women and children and they were caught in the cross fire. If you blame Israel for women and children being killed that is again your right, but it will be met with skepticism at least here. If you want that idea held up go to Daily Kos.

Their heavy handed tactics unfortunately breed resentment however in that case it is a battle of wills. At some point the people will finally realize that it is not the Israelis that are creating the problem but the terrorists themselves. When they hide among civilians at some point the civilians will realize that the terrorists are responsible for deaths when soldiers shoot at them.

You are constantly making a three sided arguement and thus when one is clearly refuted you just go to another side. It gets tiresome chasing your arguement. I long ago pointed out that for Israel it is always a double edged sword...

http://redstate.com/blogs/mike_volpe/2007/aug/23/prime_minister_maliki_c...

however, unlike you, I pointed out that this is entirely the fault of the F$%ked up societies that surround Israel. You seem to want to blame, and deny blaming, Israel for everyone around them still being stuck in the stone ages, voting in terrorists, and blindly following vicious, evil imams that call for death and destruction.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Flyer, if I may comment on Mike's comment, while I think some of the reaction to your comments on this thread have been excessive and unfair, there is a fair point that I think Mike is making, and a suggestion I would make a well: If you're going to say that the Israelis treat the Palestinians harshly, but you believe such treatment may be necessary and justified, acknowledge that possibility explicitly, and similarly, if you believe that Israel attacking a refugee camp is unjustified due to the predictable deaths of non-combatants, but realize that the non-combatants were not the Israeli's target and that the Israelis may have been left with the choice of either not going after terrorists or attacking them where there are non-combatants among whom the terrorists hide, then again, acknowledge that fact. Otherwise you may give the impression to some here that you are unfairly one-sided. While this suggestion probably means holding yourself to a higher standard than others on RS in terms of thoroughness, clarity, fairness, etc., that's my suggestion.

'harshly'...he did with intent to piss off or inflame.

He could have made the point without using it...by using it, he opened up the can...again, it's his MO.

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

You chose to infer that purely because I was the one who wrote it. If some accredited Righty said the same thing it would pass by without even a blip.

Some of you are so busy creating Flyerhawk, Man of Straw, that you see things in everything I write that simply aren't there.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

re read the thread...tell me again why using 'harshly' was necessary?...you even after call US 'predictable'...well then, I guess you knew what you were saying was going to get people upset, and you still used the term.....

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

Decided to break out the snark and "inform" me that Palestine is not a country. Of course his snark is completely acceptable because he's on your side.

That was the context of my comment. And if you thought about it for a second you would understand why I said it. I wasn't trying to incite people. I was responding to Steven's unnecessary comment.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

again...the thread is there...

You got what you wanted...hope you don't feel you're being treated harshly

" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln

It's quite common here for people to make comments containing points or arguments (e.g, Israel harshly treating Palestinians and effect it has) without acknowledging counterpoints (e.g., such harsh treatment may be necessary and justified). Yes, such an omission can sometimes make the comment more provocative, but that doesn't mean it's the intent of the poster. Personally, I think the best response is simply to ask if the person making that comment is overlooking the counterpoint, rather than presuming that that person is completely one-sided and launching into an attack based on that presumption. Sure, there are trolls who show up here and quickly reveal a sharply skewed worldview and/or "factual" assumptions that are incompatible with RS and generally not worth responding to here, but I don't think it's fair to put Flyer in that camp. From what I've seen he is quite willing to engage in rational debate, and while he's (I think) a liberal and I'm not (although on some social issues I'm libertarian), I don't find his assumptions of fact or his opinions to be similar to those of the aforementioned trolls.

Agreed, Flyer is a leftist, but he is no troll. I suspect that at least a few of us here at RS are praying for him to see the light, and renounce his leftism. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Leftists believe in all sorts of crazy things.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

See See See!!! Prayers work! He is already moving to the right. :)

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

And remember, you can't spell "leftish" without "fetish". I have no point, I just wanted to say that.

And if the point of this discussion was Israel I would explained my point in much greater detail.

But Israel wasn't the point of the thread. They were barely a factor. I made a passing comment in regards to terrorism in Palestine and how it continues to this day despite the best efforts of Israel to end it. The only reason I made the comment was to highlight one of the reasons WHY terrorism is still so prevalent in Palestine. Right or wrong the Palestinians believe that the Israelis have been an oppressive force that has treated them unfairly and, at times, brutally. Whether the Israelis have is beside the point.

Israel/Palestine is a complex topic in which I find most people are far too willing to pick a side and dig their heels in.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

the fact that terrorism continues to this day proves absolutely nothing. Everyone with any hint of knowledge realizes that defeating terrorism will be generational. Just because terrorists haven't been totally destroyed in Palestine doesn't mean that Israel's heavy handed strategy is not working. That is the point I made over and over. You claiming that Israel hasn't totally won yet, is a non starter. Israel's war with terrorism will last even longer than our own. That doesn't mean their tactics aren't working.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I realize that might be difficult to do given the number of attempted threadjacks.

My point regarding Palestinian terrorism was that the theory that you can just kill off the terrorists is deeply flawed.

However I would like to hear more on this point...

Israel's war with terrorism will last even longer than our own. That doesn't mean their tactics aren't working.

What are their tactics trying to achieve?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I have already told you. Everytime Israel is heavy handed terrorism ultimately is lessened. Everytime they capitulate, terrorism ultimately increases. Their strategy is simple, do everything to protect your citizenry, kill and capture every enemy, and build a layer of protection between yourself and your enemy: the wall, the Golan Heights, and occupation.

Ultimately, their war with terrorists will be a test of will. At some point, just like the tribes in Anbar, the citizens of Palestine will realize that their own terrorists are causing their misery, and Israel must stand up to them until then. There is only so long that brain washing can work. My parent's applied for emigration from the Soviet Union the day after they invaded Afghanistan, despite the non stop propaganda that was thrown at them, their citizenry will take a lot longer.

As Golda Meier's character, in Golda's Balcony, once said,

"we will have peace as soon as the other side learns to love their own children more than they hate us"

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

And how does your comment support the general premise of this thread?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I understand. I'm not saying it should have been necessary for you to be more thorough per my suggestion, nor am I blaming you for the tone of the reaction you received; I'm just saying that including the acknowledgments I mentioned in your initial comment would have helped avoid some of the nastiness that transpired (and that detracted from a more useful and interesting discussion or debate), and if that reaction were predictable, acknowledging those points (even with just a few words) would have been a good idea IMHO.

I admit that sometimes I get peeved by the incessant ankle biting that goes on and react negatively. I try not to but we're all human.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

we're all human.

Speak for yourself ;>

first here is what you said,

"Otherwise you may give the impression to some here that you are unfairly one-sided. While this suggestion probably means holding yourself to a higher standard than others on RS in terms of thoroughness, clarity, fairness, etc., that's my suggestion."

all true, I will point out that if take any contrarian position anywhere you must be able to hold yourself to a higher standard since the mob never notices inconsistencies of its own. Thus, if you are going to criticize Israel here, dot your t's and cross your I's or be prepared, and the same goes for the opposite position at Daily Kos.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

Right. That's why I was suggesting it, even though it means abiding by a double standard.

I've spent a little time in Israel and in the "territories," and can say that you have no friggin idea about that of which you speak.

Good to know that you can quote the "ignoramus's handbook of righteous indignation" like any other barely aware Liberal. I thought that you of all lefties would actually be capable of engaging the brain and opening the eyes -- but nope, it's all clichés with no bearing on reality whatsoever.

BTW, google "Qassam rockets" some time. Or "land for peace." Or "Gilad Shalit." Or "Ehud Goldwasser" and "Eldad Regev." Or "Palestinian state TV" and "Farfur," among others.

Jeez.

I'm a little disappointed with you, Jeff. You aren't prone to hyperbole and projection, unlike many people here. What's up with this?

Just so I'm clear where was I indignant about anything? My point was in regards to Palestinian terrorism, not whether the Israelis are good or bad people. How bout we keep our eye on the ball and not try to threadjack into a pointless debate about Israel? As I said just upthread from your comment, I am not anti-Israel. I'm also not pro-Israel, although I do believe that we must defend Israel against the evil that it fighting against currently.

I have had several Arab coworkers and associates that have said, point blank, that they despise Israel. They have called me a Jew lover because I don't adhere to their virulent anti-semitism. And these are educated and moderate Arabs.

However I have also worked with Jews that have told me that they hate the Palestinians and Arabs in general. It was just as hateful as the Arabs.

I point this out simply to illustrate that the conflict is not as Good vs Evil as some here would suggest. The animosity runs deeply on both sides.

Oh and lastly, if you would like me to point out the various embargos and restrictions that Israel imposes on "territories" I will certainly do so.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Invade it, perhaps? Start by knocking off its terror-supporting and -sympathizing and -propagandizing government? Then move to establish alternative institutions that don't do those things, while turning the population against them? Then, finally, systematically close down the sanctuaries they seek to establish within its borders?

Maybe we should try this with Iraq!

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

We know how to CREATE a support base.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

We let a strongman with pretensions to being the next Saladin remain in power instead of knocking him over while we have the chance.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And we did so because he was killing Iranians.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

No, wait. He stopped killing them, started killing Kuwaitis, and then we didn't kill him when we had the chance.

You reading Turtledove again?

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Read The Looming Tower

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

The way you so-called "Progressives" fight tooth and nail to keep from "progressing" out of living in the past and refighting dead-and-gone events over and over and over and over and over again is beyond the ridiculous, and has passed far beyond any measure of being worth anybody listening to it. Your "MoveOn" buddies who can't "MoveOn" from 2000 or from 2003 are so intellectually pathetic and reality-challenged that you need your own little bubble so that you can spew your crap and nobody ever has to hear (or upset) you again.

Yes, I'm being meaner than usual. Yes, I'm sick of stupid people with stupid answers, and their stupid crap.

The way you so-called "Progressives" fight tooth and nail to keep from "progressing" out of living in the past and refighting dead-and-gone events over and over and over and over and over again is beyond the ridiculous, and has passed far beyond any measure of being worth anybody listening to it. Your "MoveOn" buddies who can't "MoveOn" from 2000 or from 2003 are so intellectually pathetic and reality-challenged that you need your own little bubble so that you can spew your crap and nobody ever has to hear (or upset) you again.

Yes, I'm being meaner than usual. Yes, I'm sick of stupid people with stupid answers, and their stupid crap. What do you know about the situation over here? Oh, yeah, what your idols George Soros, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi told you -- and what's in the Liberal Idiots Book of Anti-Reality Clichés. For the love of God, grow up or open your eyes and at least try to recognize a fact when it kicks you in the shins, at least for once.

Just thought I'd point that out.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

Somebody else got there first - disregard the above post.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

flyerhawk,

Palestine is not a country. Never was a country. And never will be a country.

Murtha, Reid, Pelosi (most days), Babs, Durbin, etc. Or don't they count? Or maybe you're not counting them because they've decided that all of their rhetoric for the last four years or so is just a waste of time and they'll "talk" about it but not "do" anything now that they're in power.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

They advocate we leave Afghanistan? I wasn't aware of that.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

It is in Central Asia.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Here are some maps

of the Middle East that would suggest that Afghanistan is part of the Middle East. It certainly is pretty central in regards to Islamic fanaticism seeing as it is sandwiched between Pakistan and Iran.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Nor is Turkmenistan, nor is Uzbekistan. The only things these places have in common with the Middle East is that "stan" has a particular meaning in the language of one of one of the Border States of the Middle East (which in fact straddles Middle Eastern and Central Asian culture) and that the overwhelming majority of their citizens are Muslim.

The cultures, languages, variants of Islam, histories, and a thousand other aspects of their existences are so different as to make the identity ridiculous.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

And the exact same thing can be said about Iran.

It doesn't change the fact that Afghanistan is still part of the Middle East particularly in the context of this discussion which is primarily about Islamic terrorism, correct?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

First, culturally and religiously, there is a great deal that ties Iran/Persia to the Middle East. Much as the question of whether Russia is European or Asian, there is one heckuva good question as to whether it's more Asian or Middle Eastern.

Furthermore, given that we're not arguing about Islamic Terrorism, but rather "withdrawal from the Middle East," and given that Afghanistan is a Central Asian, not Middle Eastern, State by geography, I think we can all agree that your first non sequitur was utterly silly.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

If that is the criteria, than I guess Indonesia is a part of the Middle East as well.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

it is central to Islamist fanaticism?

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

You can't move past 2000 and 2003, but you sure can apply the lib staple of "fuzzy math" to geography now, and twist it to mean what you want! Wow, you're impressive!

How about you actually learn some reality instead of sticking to whatever source it is you're getting all of the abject crap that you're dropping in this thread?

What does 2000 or 2003 have to do with whether Afghanistan can or should be considered part of the Middle East?

If you would like to create arbitrary boundaries, go for it. If you think that Turkey isn't part of the Middle East, as well as Europe, that's your call.

Calling me an idiot or a dumba$$ may make you feel better but it certainly doesn't do much to help your image.

Clearly this week has upped the political temperature because nothing I said in this thread should honestly be viewed as particularly Lefty yet the name calling has been rather intense, even by generally sober and intelligent people as yourself.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

...no sleep for several days, and the fact that you have made clear in this thread that you have no problem ignoring, twisting, or otherwise altering facts and your own personal reality in order to be contrarian to every single statement made by anybody. Period.

Scroll up and down here. You tie and twist yourself and your own logic into knots so large that it boggles the mind, all, apparently, for the sake of being able to disagree with every statement made and to make what you apparently see as cleverly snide comments. If you can't even see that, then I sure can't help you.

But what I see here is a bunch of people that hold a single view that aren't willing to concede even minor points on it. There is a "You're either with us completely or you're against us completely" mindset here.

I'm not trying to be contrarian. I just don't hold the same absolute view that you and others do. You seem to believe that the only logical choice in Iraq is continuing the fight. All other options are so clearly wrong that you believe anyone who advocates them must OBVIOUSLY have ulterior motives. I do not agree with this view.

Pedantic gotchas were the name of the game in this thread. "Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East!". Ok. So what? How does the arbitrary definition of what is and what is not the Middle East materially change the discussion, other than allowing you and others to gleefully point out how little I know? I was also told that Palestine is not a country as a counter to the point that Palestine has been engaged in terrorism for 40 years. Again what does their political status have to do with the point?

In the Israel threadjack segment of this thread I was both taken to task for making the outlandish claim that Israel has acted harshly and I was told why it was necessary for them to act harshly. Of course those that decried my use of the word "harshly" didn't bother to criticize the other posters that justified Israel's actions.

And, as usual, any post I make that can be viewed as conciliatory towards the opposing view is largely ignored because it is much more enjoyable to attack Flyerhawk the Strawman than engage in adult debate. The only people who seemed to even bother reading those comments were BrooksRob and Mr. Hahn.

I understand that my views are not going to be well received on this subject. However I don't even advocate my actual views here because even slight opposition to the current party line is anathema on this site, at least regarding Iraq.

How bout you guys stop projecting views onto me and respond to what I actually say?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

first, as everyone can see, even with maximum force victory is anything but probable. Thus, anything less is sure defeat. You can claim a middle ground but in fact, all supposed middle grounds are sure defeats.

As to Israel, again, you claim you weren't criticizing Israel and then ask why no one else criticized Israel. I responded to you why Israel does what it does. It is the only way to protect its citizenry. They are either completely heavy handed or bombs blow up in major cities. If you want to criticize Israel for protecting its citizenry, that is your choice, but you will be met with significant resistance here.

In fact, it is you that takes all sorts of straw man arguements. You criticize Israel and then claim you didn't. You claim their tactics don't cut down on terrorism even though in fact they already have. Israel faces enemies from all 360% degrees of its surroundings. This started and is rooted in things entirely separated from any heavy handed actions they have taken. You are basically taking the Steven Spielberb position that the violence is a vicious cycle, and that is only when it is tit for tat. When they went into Jenin and killed every single terrorist in the camp then suddenly homicide bombings were reduced to almost zero. Back on 2002 and 2003, they were weekly and now they happen a few times per year. You think that because a country the size of Rhode Island has not destroyed every enemy it faces, which is the rest of the desert many times the size of the U.S., that means they haven't slowed down terrorism. They have, but your standards are impossible.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

figured it was the start of the last letter you were ever going to write. Ever.

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

do not recall many headlines about the USSR invading the Middle East.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

"The cultures, languages, variants of Islam, histories, and a thousand other aspects of their existences are so different as to make the identity ridiculous"

I disagree, the only thing that matters is Islam, Islam is a cultural creation of Arabia and indelibly bears its mark. Islam is also a totalitarian philosophy, it controls and permeates all aspects of the lives of its followers. So all of the culture and language differences pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming influence of Islam in the people's lives.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

"So all of the culture and language differences pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming influence of Islam in the people's lives."

I don't think that's quite correct. I've traveled in Indonesia (the largest Islamic country in the world), Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, & Kyrgyzstan), and the Arab Middle East (Jordan & Iraq). The three regions are completely different in cultural values, mores, politics, and social structures. Islam is an influence, sure, but the pressure of recent history and geopolitical circumstances is far greater.

Uzbekistan, for example, is essentially Russian -- a particularly illustrative story of mine involves tossing back vodka shots in a mosque with some workers there. Indonesia is a frenetic melting pot of cultures, with Malay and Chinese and Pac-islander and even some Australian influences.

What these three areas DO have in common are significant economic and political problems. Radical Islam provides an easy-to-follow script for the discontented in these societies, one that can simultaneously appeal to their nativist sympathies (i.e. be set up in opposition to The West) and provides encouragement in the form of a "universal", trans-national philosophy.

Even then, though, the role that radical Islam plays in these societies is very different. I would say that it is far more mainstream in the Middle East, or at least has popular sympathy, than, say, in Indonesia. There the society is so fragmented culturally into literally hundreds of languages and ethnic groups that most Muslims think of the radicals as being crazies who live on the outskirts of the archipelago (and are separated by barriers of language and culture).

In the 'stans they're mostly too drunk and maudlin to care. Most people want the Soviet Union back, not the Taliban.

Try this link. It will explain a lot.

http://www3.nationalgeographic.com/places/regions/region_middleeast.html

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

RFYoung

What nonsense, that they can make terrorists faster than we can kill them. We haven't even fielded two million men yet. We haven't used the big guns.

There is no more efficient killing machine in the history of the earth than an army of angry northern European/Americans. Ask the Apache or the Souix. Ask Atalnta or Gettysburg. Ask Dresden or Hamburg. Ask the Japanese.

Ask our closest ally, the British, about New Orleans.

These people have and do repeatedly say that they want to kill us. They are 1000 years behind civilization. They are the savage hords at the gate. They brought the fight to us, not we to them.

It is now time for them to pay the price.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

While Marines tend to make fun of Air Force guys (but they love the accomodations at AF bases and the women in the AF...) General LeMay arguably made Patton look like a Quaker.

The question being, does killing terrorists accomplish anything? The general equation is pretty simple. It does when you kill enough of them. Note that "enough" is not a fixed number. "Enough" happens when we've broken their will to come after us.

I don't give a tinkers dam about their "hearts and minds". I care about their feet. I would stop the arc light raids when their feet stopped marching off to fight us. And not an instant before. We've turned "war" from a killing field to a video game to our great detrement. We now worry about "collateral damage" instead of planning on it.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

But the question whether killing terrorists accomplishes anything or not strikes me like the question of whether imprisoning criminals reduces crime or not...

Clearly when a criminal is in jail he is not elsewhere at the same time committing crimes. Similarly, a dead terrorist is no longer able to plan or carry out terror attacks - thus killing terrorists must eventually reduce terrorism.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet our crime rates are higher than most other western nations.

That's not to suggest that punishment crime is pointless. It is necessary. But crime is a part of human society. Are we now accepting terrorism as just part of the world and that we have no expectation of ever eliminating it?

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

We have the highest incarceration rate in the world and yet our crime rates are higher than most other western nations.

Apples to oranges. The real question is, what would our crime rate look like with higher/lower incarceration rates.

___________________________________
Two thirds of the world is covered by water,
the other third is covered by Champ Bailey.

It would accomplish a whole lot more, if the terrorists that were subject to being killed, knew that the country that was killing them was not going to stop until the last one of them has gone to meet their virgins. The problem with this current fight is that a certain political group from the country that is presently killing the terrorists has promised the terrorists that they are not going to let them all be killed. That they are going to prevent the killing of as many of the terrorists as they can. In fact, the terrorists understand there is no deed that they can do, that will get the American leftist terrorist supporters mad enough to want to kill them. Witness the current fight in Washington by the Democrat politicians to try and prevent the killing of as many terrorists as possible.

It's all the Democrats fault. Heck the terrorists themselves aren't nearly as culpable for their acts as the Democrats are.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Let's see, "holy warriors" who are willing to murder indiscriminately to protect a twisted ideology, or "activists" who are willing to sell out thier own country to them for political expediency and/or pork?
_________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

Personally I'm not a fan of using our soldiers as a honeypot to draw terrorists to them.

In dealing with a group of people with the stated intention of killing Americans, I'd rather they be going up against Americans who are armed, armored, trained, and ready to kick asperagus (*stupid profanity rules!*), rather than office buildings full of file clerks. I think 9/11 pretty much proved that it's got to be one or the other, we don't really have a choice about it anymore, and it's very likely to end up being both at times.

You might have missed this, but I think that point of this post was that the Marines have a better chance of winning than the Accounts Payable department, though I wouldn't count out the legal department.
___________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

You might have missed this, but I think that point of this post was that the Marines have a better chance of winning than the Accounts Payable department, though I wouldn't count out the legal department.

Not to mention that if you tell somebody from the Accounts Payable department to take a gun, go into the other room, and go face the six armed jihadis waiting to kill him, he'll (rightfully) panic. The Marine will shake your hand and ask you for a couple of grenades*.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

*Or a radio, so that he can call for a Warthog. Or something else sensible. You get the point. :)

n/t

1. We should be sending Pentagon lawyers for a full tour with front line infantry before they are allowed to comment or express an opinion on the conflict.
2. If the AP department you refer to is a Marine department, they will generally have an idea what to do. After all, every Marine is first an infantry Marine. :>)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Correct. Why, is it like The Onion or something? I realize there was humor here, but wasn't a serious argument being made as I described it? I'll have to check out IMAO now to see if I'm missing something here.

Or put differently, is it SUPPOSED to sound like a moby trying to make us war supporters sound like simpletons?

Read his piece on nuking the moon.

http://www.imao.us/docs/NukeTheMoon.htm

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

this is his magnum opus

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling

Based on about a minute on IMAO, seems like the answer may be "yes" in a sort of self-deprecating way, but I'm unsure of whether or not some folks here are viewing the argument in the post as actually a sound argument. If it's meant as just a friendly caricature of us Iraq war supporters, then let someone let me know and I'll do my best to lighten up. In fairness to me, sometimes people post arguments, meant seriously, that could pass for parody.

Relax. It's sort of a faux-ironic thing. I could spend some time explaining it, but that would probably give away my secret identity.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

ok, guys. I guess I'm the last to know about this site (of which I'll be a regular visitor henceforth, after reading a bit of the "moon" piece). ok, breathing deeply, calming down. (but man, do I feel like the uncool kid on the block)

RFYoung

Sophisiticated arguments? We don't need no stinking sophisiticated arguments!

or

Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead.

Or as a college buddy of mine used to say (half-jokingly) when we got into heated political debates and he would pull some premise straight out of his a*s, "I don't need facts -- I have opinions!"

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

I wish my beehive was that nice. Sigh.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

We bots always try to help our man, or woman, or whatever!

Any day that combines Frank J. with Redstate is a banner day--
especially if it confounds those who deserve to be confounded. All the Whos down in Whoville are singing.

The opposite is to cut off their support base by dealing with the political issues that are the engine that drives terrorism.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Me, I'm kinda stuck on that whole Catholicism thing.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

We'll send in armed missionaries.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Can we fix it? Yes we can!

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

..."We break for bulldozers"?

I apologize in advance

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

I just got done chuckling at that.

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

Although I've seen a couple of reports/opinions indicating that al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to convert everyone in the world to Islam, the balance of what I've read (9/11 Commission Report and other sources I consider credible on this question) indicates that their ultimate goal is to establish a caliphate over the muslim world. Of course, even if that's true, their goals could easily change, and converting the "infidels" could become an end in itself to them or perhaps be seen as the only way to preserve the caliphate. But at least as for now, it seems to me that converting all the infidels around the world is not what they are fighting for.

I mean, that's your call - but frankly when he says we ought to all convert I'm pretty much taking it in a different light than, say, the same words if spoken by Pope Benedict.

That I cannot immediately recall those precise words coming out of the Holy Father's mouth not withstanding.

YMMV.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

the Holy Mother, Ann Coulter.

Something on the order of... We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Look man, I'm kinda partial to Ms. Coulter and she sure ain't hard to look at - but I think one would need to be blogging-while-over-the-legal-limit-times-about-20 in order to confuse her with His Holiness.

Just saying.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

She is indeed hard to look at, and her voice and demeanor are entirely unattractive and so far from feminine it's ridiculous. One of these days I think she'll wear such a short skirt that her cojones will show.

Now Michelle Malkin -- ooooh Baby!

That's hitting below the belt, man.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

hey, maybe if I did actually hit Coulter below the belt she'd have the voice of a woman.

For one thing, he's a lot taller. For another, he wears hats. And from what I've seen, her dresses are a lot shorter. /snark/

I was just providing fodder for the "convert 'em" crowd.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Give me a quote, in context, and with a source (and preferably a link), so I can see what he said and if he was expressing a wish/suggestion or if he was stating it as a goal they were fighting for (to convert all "infidels" to Islam).

Read his last two missives (last week and Oct 2004).

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I just re-read a transcript of the recent video (scanned it and read relevant parts more closely) http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf and didn't see a clear indication that one of the reasons they are waging their war against us is a requirement that we all convert to Islam. Quote for me what you consider evidence of that position.

Since I've gone through that trouble, even though you were the one who quoted him and should be the one providing the source and link, please direct me to the 2004 statement to which you refer.

He's waging war on us. He wants us to convert. He states that conversion will bring peace. He's waging war on us...

What part of this is not clear to you?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

He is saying that conversion will LEAD to peace, but that's not the same as saying that conversion is a REQUIREMENT for peace. What part of THAT is not clear to YOU? I'd rather not get snarky, but I'm just pointing out your snark and suggesting we just have a nice discussion.

I though it was '04 but it was actually much earlier.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I guess you don't want to drop the bad attitude, but I'll request it again. I'm tryin' reeeeeeal hard these days not to be drawn into nastiness.

If you're referring to the 1998 fatwa, see GC's excerpt and my comment below.

And let's try to have a civil discussion.

But we seem to disagree on a couple of things - so let me spell out where I am coming from:

1) bin Laden declared Jihad in 1998 - calling on all Muslims everyehere to kill all Americans everywhere
2) that Jihad order stands today
3) it is reasonably well established that conversion spares you from death (though you are likely still subject to subjugation)
4) bin Laden, in fact, offers conversion as a (point conceeded) route to peace

So, if you want me to offer that bin Laden never gave a "convert or die" order directly, I'll withdraw that point. But seeing as how his goal is a worldwide caliphate - be it through conversion or the death of the infidel - I'm not seeing how operationally there is any need to make the statement overtly.

Civil enough?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

see reply downthread "Reply to docj"

Go to the bottom of the thread.

So conversion is the only alternative to death it seems. Rather straightforward, no?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

... and you get some 753K hits - the first 15 I looked at were relevant.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

See my comment above. Instead of asking me to find your quote for you, why don't you do it. Show me. And go straight to the source: bin Laden's (or Zawahiri's) own words, without ellipses).

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Although I've seen a couple of reports/opinions indicating that al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to convert everyone in the world to Islam, the balance of what I've read indicates that their ultimate goal is to establish a caliphate over the muslim world.

Well, if *that's* all they want, then I suppose we really *are* being unreasonable about this. It's sooo simple now - All we have to do to ensure our long-term safety is turn over a quarter of the world's population, 80% of it's oil reserves, and at least two countries with nuclear capability to THE SAME FREAKIN PEOPLE WHO MASTERMINDED 9/11!!!!!!

Let me ask you, how many nails do you have to drive into your own skull in order to get to the point where this seems like a Good Idea?
_________________________________________
"You can't save the Earth unless you're willing to make other people sacrifice" - Scott Adams (speaking through Dogbert)

And what political issues might these be? All I ever hear is that they hate us and want to kill us because we're not Muslims and we support Israel. After all, Mohammed told them to do it.

Some states like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and others are able to seperate their religion from their politics enough to know better than to attack other countries. They leave us alone, we leave them alone. In fact, we engage in commerce together and enjoy the fruits.

However, countries like Iran and the loose nuts without a nation (Al Qaeda & Co.) are bent on trying to destroy anyone who does not do things their way.

Now what were those political issues again?

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

I disagree with both you and flyer on this one. No, Scott, I don't think they want to kill us because we're not Muslim. But no, Flyer, we can't satisfy them via political changes that would (or should) be at all acceptable to us. They want a caliphate -- picture Taliban-style rule, with all its violations of human rights -- across the entire Muslim world (defined as broadly as they wish), and they are obviously willing to kill as many innocent people as necessary to achieve it in full.

We aren't looking to convert the actual terrorists. Too late for them.

What we need to do is create change among the people that support the terrorism, either explicitly or implicitly.

Terrorism needs popular support.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

We aren't looking to convert the actual terrorists. Too late for them.

Well, we can't let them keep running around loose. You say we can't convert them, I say we kill them. Do we agree, or do you have a better idea that doesn't involve killing them?

And if the answer is law enforcement, well, somebody's still got to capture them.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

My concern lays with the process of killing them.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If YOU'RE not willing to do it , dont sweat it. n/t

ok, fair point, Flyer, but there's still the very difficult issue of how we should fight terrorists in the meantime while we wait (and hope) for popular sentiment in the Muslim world to turn strongly enough against them to stop them for us to an acceptable extent. The changes you're talking about are long-term goals and not exactly guaranteed, to say the least.

Yes, we need to FACTOR INTO our choices of policy what the short- and long-term impact will be on of popular sentiment that can be more or less conducive to terrorism today and in the future. But just as we shouldn't simply attack everywhere without considering the negative repercussions on such popular sentiment, we can't abandon all the policies of our GWOT that have a negative effect on such sentiment, because that would leave us way too vulnerable. Reasonable people can disagree on where exactly the optimal balance is. Personally I think you're erring too far toward basing policy on changing hearts & minds and not enough on policies that may run contrary to that goal but which I think we are better off maintaining.

defined as those that don't accept their extremist view of Islam. Read The Looming Tower re the Wahhabists and listen to what the leaders say in Iran (Death to America, The Great Satan).

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I'm aware of the claim in The Looming Tower. That was among the couple of reports/opinions to which I referred that do say that about bin Laden's goals. As I said, that runs contrary to the balance of what I've read from sources I consider credible.

What sources have do you refer to? Got any specific cites that say Bin Laden and company are not interested in the world outside of historically Islamic lands?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

What I'm saying is that, in most of the sources I've read and heard from that I consider credible, including the 9/11 Commission Report and a number of other sources (including statements from bin Laden and al Qaeda) in which their demands are listed, those demands include the U.S. getting out of what they consider to be Muslim lands and the U.S. stopping it's support of regimes in Muslim countries that stand in the way of the caliphate they seek, but not the conversion of Americans to Islam. As Encarta (encyclopedia) puts it, "According to the U.S. State Department, al-Qaeda has stated its goals as driving U.S. forces from the Arabian Peninsula, overthrowing the Saudi government, and supporting Islamic revolutionary groups around the world." The latter is presumably intended as support for establishing the caliphate. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_701505592/bin_Laden_Osama.html

To be sure, bin Laden has said that Americans SHOULD convert to Islam, and he's said that if we did the war in Iraq will end (although his odd, newly lefty logic seems to be that if we all converted to Islam, we'd ditch democracy and capitalism, which he says are the drivers of our war in Iraq). But I haven't seen much evidence, outside of a couple of potentially credible accounts/views, that our conversion is a demand of his or of al Qaeda, meaning something we must do, even if we meet all his demands on policy, for him to stop trying to kill as many of us as possible.

So again, where I've seen his DEMANDS listed, our conversion is not one of them. Obviously it would be hard for me to prove a negative -- that someone never said something -- and it's up to those who claim he IS making that demand to substantiate that claim.

Also from Encarta:

Al-Qaeda
II. Al-Qaeda’s Mission

Al-Qaeda seeks to incite a global jihad (holy war) to overthrow regimes with predominantly Arab or Muslim populations that al-Qaeda considers corrupt and anti-Islamic. It wants to replace these regimes with a single Muslim nation or empire strictly governed according to sharia (Islamic law). Al-Qaeda sees the United States and other Western countries as blocking this goal because they are allied with many of the countries al-Qaeda considers corrupt.

Al-Qaeda also considers the presence of U.S. military forces in Saudi Arabia an affront to the Muslim people because Saudi Arabia is the location of Islam’s two holiest shrines, Mecca and Medina. Bin Laden has issued two fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) calling for the expulsion of these forces from the Arabian Peninsula and sanctioning the use of violence to achieve this objective. A 1998 fatwa, issued in the name of “The World Islamic Front for Jihad Against the Jews and Crusaders,” declared that “the ruling to kill the Americans and their allies—civilian or military—is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.” Bin Laden regards the U.S. military presence as a continuation of the Crusades, a series of wars during the Middle Ages in which Western Christians sought to capture the Holy Land from Muslims.

In addition, since the September 11 attacks bin Laden has sought to exploit Arab and Muslim hatred of Israel, calling for the destruction of the Jewish state. He has also tried to portray al-Qaeda as the true defender of Islam and protector of Muslims everywhere. He has opposed U.S.-backed sanctions imposed on Iraq by the United Nations (UN) and the violence inflicted on Muslims in places such as Bosnia, Chechnya, East Timor, the Philippines, Sudan, and Somalia.

This person was the contributor of the above Encarta piece:

Contributed By:
Bruce Hoffman, A. B., B. Phil., D. Phil.
Vice President for External Affairs, Director of the Washington Office, Rand Corporation. Author of Inside Terrorism and Countering the New Terrorism.

Is how big is this caliphate? You seem to think it's confined to the Arabian peninsula. I don't think it is. At a minimum it would have to extend into Asia, Europe, and Africa. There's no reason to believe the Western Hemisphere isn't also a priority, whether they've specifically listed it as a demand or not.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

nice job putting words in my mouth and not paying attention to what I've actually written. I've said the Muslim world (however they define it). And obviously that includes most of the Middle East, and parts of Asia and Africa. But I would imagine that, in Europe, that would include just Turkey and Bosnia, and I don't get your assumption regarding the Western Hemisphere (it's something you state, but don't give any argument for).

You're the one that is arguing that a mad man bent on forcing people to convert to his form of Islam or die isn't interested in the US for some reason. He's just interested in Saudi Arabia. And Pakistan. And Egypt. And Indonesia. And Turkey. And Morocco. And Spain. But not the US.

But I would imagine that, in Europe, that would include just Turkey and Bosnia

Again, based on what are you imagining this? Why wouldn't OBL and company be interested in Spain or Portugal? Maybe you can devise some kind of theory about that that makes a bit of sense, because I haven't seen it yet.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

They claim the Iberian peninsula as well.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Those darn "Moops"! http://youtube.com/watch?v=N8erL9xaCkg ("Moops" reference beginning at 6:36 in video)

it would be too much. They are a fanatical murder cult of death with no legitimate beef against the United States.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Lest anyone get the wrong impression, I am by no means suggesting we should shape our policy to conform to al Qaeda's wishes. I'm just trying to point out what I believe to be their goals and what goals that are attributed to them that I haven't seen sufficient substantiation for yet.

1800s when Europe wanted to pay tribute and we refused? We are the reason trade routes in the world aren't toll lanes controlled by mafias.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

are Bernard Lewis's "What went Wrong? and more and Bodansky's pre-911 UBL book.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

I'm just saying The Looming Tower is one book by one guy (with whom I'm unfamiliar). I'll have to check out the others you mentioned to see who they are, any perspective they're coming from, and what they said. If you have quotes or links, that might save me a bit of time. Anyway, I'll do a quick search.

goals and ever changing greivance.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Mike, no offense, but WTF?? You don't have to tell me we need to kill them, and you certainly don't need to imply that I've forgotten about 9/11, ok? I see no reason to be hostile to an attempt to develop an accurate understanding of what their demands are, and certainly no reason to imply that someone has forgotten about 9/11, especially not the day after the anniversary and especially not to a guy who lived then, and still lives, in Manhattan, and whose experience of it may have been different from yours. Seeking an accurate understanding of those animals certainly doesn't mean that I'm any less supportive of our GWOT than you are.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

...the engine that drives terrorism.

In this flavor, it's spelled I-S-L-A-M.

Unless you're planning on getting rid of that (not a particularly pretty idea, but one that does have some merit in a purely utilitarian, "Can it get the job done" sense), I'm all ears as to your planned approach.

Otherwise, what Thomas said.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Hippie. Their political issue is that they are religious zealots who think that Allah has commanded them to kill all the infidels and when they do they will go to heaven with seventy two virgins. Deal with that. The only way to deal with terrorists is to kill them

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

...cut off their support base by dealing with the political issues that are the engine that drives terrorism.

Congratulations! I knew that if you participated here long enough, the light bulb would one day go on over your head.

So you agree that terrorism is driven, at least in part, by the utterly hopeless conditions that obtain in these countries where thuggish despots divert all the mineral wealth into their own palaces with solid gold toilets.

You must therefore also agree that the more of these thuggish despots we overthrow, replacing them with governments that are answerable to the citizens, the fewer people will live under these terrorism-breeding political conditions.

Saddam Hussein was just one of the despots, but it's a start.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I completely agree with the first part. The oppressive conditions that much of the Arab world lives in is a big part of the problem. And I do believe that changing those regimes to modern liberal governments would greatly help the people and help to eradicate terrorism.

However I don't agree that our invading a nation to overthrow their government is a means to that end. I believe that doing so simply allows a different group of despots to take charge and us the United States as their excuse for atrocious behavior.

We need to be there to help nations along in moving forward but I don't believe that we can externally change a nation.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

If the answer is 'none yet,' then how will they take charge as long as we remain until the job's done?

If the answer is 'they can't,' then isn't the Democratic cut and run strategy going to create a greater terrorist threat than would exist if we... stay the course?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

That guys like Sadr are despots in training.

Iraq is still very much up in the air as to what will ultimately happen. I don't know what the right course of action in Iraq is. I wish I did. While I think that going in was a terrible idea that horse has left the barn so I am not against staying in Iraq PROVIDED our leadership makes it very clear what our intentions are, which I don't think they are doing right now.

The Democrats talk about pulling out but vacillate whenever they are asked to put their pen where their mouth is. The Republicans talk about staying the course but don't tell people the cold bitter truth, that staying in Iraq means staying for many likely bloody years.

But to answer your question I do think that leaving now would essentially allow the despots free reign. What I don't know is whether that is our best choice or is staying longer and risking withdrawing later with the same results but with more dead soldiers.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

I love how hard you try to dance around it. You absolutely, positively refuse to lay the blame on the Democrats (the people you usually vote for) for pushing a cut and run strategy, therefore allowing a Sadr or someone else to take over, therefore (according to your own theories) creating oppressive conditions that 'breed' terrorists.

You nearly dodged it... by claiming that are options are withdraw now, or withdraw later. Well, 'hawk, WHY are those our options? Is it because the Democrats won't let up with their lies about our troops, comparing them with Nazis (Durbin), calling them incompetent (Schumer), saying they're going into people's homes and terrorizing them (Kerry), etc. etc.? Is it because they won't stop lying about their own votes (Kerry, Clinton) to go into Iraq, and more specifically the reasons for going in listed in the resolution they ratified?

We have to finish the job, or everything that the (relatively few) soliders who have died over there died for, will be lost. ALL of it.

The only thing left would be to put up a memorial... which would then get oil poured on it by some lefty nut...

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

blame the Democrats for everything that goes wrong in the world.

But that blade cuts both ways.

Personally I prefer to talk about the policies themselves rather than play the blame game.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

and inhibit would be allies. Their policy is responsible for the longevity of America's effort in Iraq than anything Rumsfeld did or didn't do.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Your guys (and don't give me that junk about not being a registered Democrat, because I don't care. You defend them all the time, you've expressed preferences for voting for them, so they're yours) have an expressed policy preference to RUN AWAY FROM IRAQ, saying it's not our problem.

According to YOU, a guy like Sadr is a despot in training. According to YOU, despotic rule breeds terrorism.

So according to you, if we go with a Democratic plan for Iraq, we will stand back and watch the place breed terrorism, and know it going in.

There isn't really any gray area. Either we keep on going until the job's done, or we quit prematurely according to some politically-generated deadline. President Bush has called for the former, his opponents have called for otherwise.

There's a right side and a wrong side here. I urge you to get right with YOUR OWN EXPRESSED VIEWS OF THE ORIGINS OF TERROR, AND YOUR OWN EXPRESSED VIEWS OF OUR OPPONENTS IN IRAQ.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Your either or choice is loaded to favor your views. Either we stick it out to the end and win or we quit and lose. Well gee given those choices how could anyone POSSIBLY want the latter?

That gray is an interminable occupation in which we never achieve a thing but keep an endless cycle of violence from ever ending.

We are not omnipotent. There are some things that are beyond our powers. It is possible that fundamentally changing Iraq is beyond our power.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

This is exactly what I am talking about when I refer to loaded questions....

Courtesy RJ Matson, Roll Call via Cagle Cartoons at The Moderate Voice

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

have been to aid the terrorists.Proof of that is obtained from the North Vietnamese Colonel who accepted the surrender of South Vietnam .

"Question: How did Hanoi intend to defeat the Americans?

Answer: By fighting a long war which would break their will to help South Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh said,
"We don't need to win military victories, we only need to hit them until they give up and get out."

Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi's victory?
A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us."

That was their policy in surrendering South Vietnam to North Vietnam.

The actions of the Democrat political leaders in front of America, in the past few days, have proven that their policy has not changed.

I've been a little busy at work lately but I can't imagine I missed that one.

Oh that's right. This is your cut and paste stuff about things that happend 30-40 years ago.

I know. I know. Next comes the story about Kennedy & Co. sold the United States to the Soviets to win the election in 1984.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

of the Democrats have not changed. Whoever is against America is who they support. All these years and nothing changes, the same Democrats are still selling out America.

We shall see. Near as I can tell, we have been doing everything we can to assist those Iranians who wish to "move forward." By all accounts, there are quite a few such people. So far, obviously, they have not had much success. On the other hand, Shah had some pretty good secret police, and he fell right over once seriously challenged.

Iran is a very different case. In particular, it is a "country," in the sense that we usually use that word. By comparison, Iraq without Saddam is like Yugoslavia without Tito. Nevertheless, had the people in Iraq taken advantage of the opportunity we provided to them, they could have built a shining city on a dune. Instead they used the relative freedom of the post-Saddam era to haul out every clan and tribal grudge that had been brewing for the last 500 years. It's so sad. Their so-called "leaders" don't appear to have any other agenda.

Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.

I do think that Iran was moving in the right direction but 9/11 changed all that.

And you are right on with regards to Iraq. The irony of that is that I do believe that one of the reasons that the Administration chose to go into Iraq is because they felt that Afghanistan was too Balkanized and we would be caught in a morass of tribal fighting never achieving anything.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

Fanaticism is a bi-product of political and social angst.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Flyer, I know you can't be this naive.

www.scottbomb.com
Click here to donate to the Fred Thompson campaign.

Cause and effect. Different things.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.

but perhaps a good place to start would be to identify mosques that are fomenting hatred and acting as fronts for terrorism and bomb the damn things until the largest piece of rubble will fit through a fine screen.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.

Flyer, the traditional leftist line is that fanaticism is rooted in sexual repression.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!

What sort of angst, pray tell? Political oppression? Dysfunctional societies?

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

you saved me from googling the source of that quote.

R.F.K. was quoting G.B.S. when he said it,

I quote Kennedy because it is relevant to me. I know the original source of the quote, which RFK credited when he said it.

I find a Presidential hopeful saying this to be more relevant than a snake in a poem.

There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why ... I dream of things that never were and ask why not. - Robert Kennedy

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

And how exactly does your excerpt support your claim rather than mine? Where does it say or imply that a demand -- a requirement for peace -- is that Americans all convert to Islam?

They said:

According to bin Laden's 1998 fatwa (religious decree), it is the duty of Muslims around the world to wage holy war on the U.S., American citizens, and Jews.

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

Yes, I think that's accurate, although it seems to be because our policies interfere with his goals, not because we are "infidels".

But I thought we were debating the "conversion" claim.

Thomas' initial comment that started this: http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/i_think_the_u_s_military_should...

My reply, which was followed by docj claiming that conversion was a demand of theirs.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/archived/i_think_the_u_s_military_should...

I assumed you were weighing in on that question.

By the way, check out page 3 of the transcript of his recent video, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4. He stresses the opposite of a "convert or die" message. Granted, he may be saying things he doesn't really mean in order to influence our domestic politics or those of other nations or broaden his appeal to Muslims, but for whatever it's worth, he is claiming that they do not have a conversion demand nor a goal of killing Americans if our policies weren't getting in his way. http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/transcript2.pdf

Again, just because some have trouble taking things at face value (not saying you), I'm NOT saying we should bow in any way to any degree to his demands, and I want to cut this guy up as much as anybody. I'm just exploring the question at hand here regarding what his demands are and aren't.

that a muslim empire, run by a caliph and in the possession of weaponry they could have only previously dreamed of, can peacefully coexist with the infidel?

If that's the case, let me ask you this: what, in the long history of Islam, leads you to believe that?

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

I don't know, and I'll do what I can in my political choices not to find out. But let's not move the goalpoasts here. You asserted quite strongly that bin Laden had the stated demand that everyone in the world convert to Islam or be killed. You have yet to substantiate that claim. Do you plan to do so? And if not, are you withdrawing that claim?

If not, done - for the time being (it's been a looooooong day, I have no energy to dig into his and his minions statements and I really have to get to bed).

I'll take it up again tomorrow if work permits.

-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.

Sleep well, infidel. (hey, that kinda almost rhymes in a catchy way, like "See ya' later, alligator).

Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson

BtVS (why I bought a DVD player, in fact), Firefly, BSG (both camps), Bab5, the various STs, Star Wars... heck, we even have a roleplaying gamer or two stinking up the place. :)

Moe Lane

PS: Agreed, by the way.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

n/t

And if you don't know Dr Who, you don't know science fiction. The rest is all derivative.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

She kept fighting to keep the advertising revenue from a popular show coming in.

a href="http://andrightlyso.com/index.php">And Rightly So!