Western guilt blinds us to the nature of Islamic extremism

lalalalaaaaaaaa

1) You say that the conflict would not necessarily end if the interferences do not. How does that work considering your previous statement:

"Radical Islamic extremeists [sic] have the goal of being left alone by the West and Israel"

If those extermists truly only wish to be "left alone", why would they continue this conflict if that wish was granted? Wouldn't additional wishes be required to continue the conflict?

Like I just said, conflicts mutate and change over time...so do the wishes of each side over time. So I don't know if the conflict would end based on the original wishes being granted. However, I do know that the conflict (meaning the terrorist attacks) stemmed from the interferences I mentioned before.

2) You say that this conflict is caused by our interferences. What do you say about their interferences? Al Qaeda and similar groups directly interfere or have interfered with Russian interests, Israel's interests and now American interests. How come our interferences justify their aggression or existence, but their interferences cannot justify ours?

I never said our interferences justify their agression or existence. I said our interferences are the cause of their attacks on us. That doesn't mean they're justified.

3) You say "there's no ideology involved here". Yet these "interferences" have happened throughout the globe without a similar result. We are not fighting extremists from Panama, Columbia or other nations in similar situations despite very similar "interferences" there. If ideology is irrelevant, what accounts for these differences?

Money. Al Qaeda is heavily funded by rich families such as the Bin Ladens. They were also trained and funded by the CIA. Central Americans are not.

4) By suggesting that America/Israel is the root cause behind suicide bombings and other violent acts by Islamic Radicals and suggesting that it would be "worth a try" to end our interferences, you obviously believe that America/Israel has a choice to change their behavior. But at the same time you seem to suggest that Islamic Radicalism is a determined reaction to our behavior. Do Islamic Radicals have no choice in their violent behavior? If they do have choice, isn't that choice and their failure to turn their backs on violence primary in their complicity as a violent entity in the exact same way that our choices are primary in our own complicity in these events? In short, can you please explain how your argument does not require Islamic Radicals to be reactionary zombies without free will?

Everyone has a choice to change their behavior. My argument is that American interference is the motivation for the terrorism carried out against us. Al Qaeda chooses to carry out that terrorism as a response to our interference. They could choose otherwise, but they don't. But that doesn't change the fact that their motivation stems from our interference, not a difference of ideology. I don't see how my argument requires them to be reactionary zombies without free will.

even flow?

[quote="NCfan
Keeping score can be useful, but at this point in the history of the Middle East it will only continue a never ending cycle of violence to do so. This is the author's point. Afterall, she did admit that Israel and the US have made many mistakes in the Arab world.
[/quote"]
You are an American???? And you quote something about never ending violence! Why don't you count on your fingers and toes and then get your mommy or daddy to stand by so you can use their fingers and toes too, and count up the number of countries you have dropped bombs on. Then come and quote me something about violence.

Do you have an opinion on how your government fucked up bad in New Orleans or was that the Muslims wrong doing too? You don't seem to have an opinion other then wanting dead Muslims. Just an observation.

even flow?

hailhailkc wrote:

Question: Would you kill someone in order to save your life, or the life of a loved one? Say, as in self-defense?

Like having some other body tell me they need a homeland and take me off of mine. I would sure be killing them until they were all gone. Oooops, that is the problem!

know1

hailhailkc wrote:

Question: Would you kill someone in order to save your life, or the life of a loved one? Say, as in self-defense?

Nope. But bombing people in a market isn't exactly self-defense, either.

farfromglorified

Saturnal wrote:

Like I just said, conflicts mutate and change over time...so do the wishes of each side over time. So I don't know if the conflict would end based on the original wishes being granted. However, I do know that the conflict (meaning the terrorist attacks) stemmed from the interferences I mentioned before.

But your original point was that all these people want is to be left alone. Again, how does that point square with the language above.

I never said our interferences justify their agression or existence. I said our interferences are the cause of their attacks on us. That doesn't mean they're justified.

Ok, that's fair. But are you not saying that our interferences cause their aggression therefore we should change? Can you not simply flip that around and suggest that their interferences are causing our violence and therefore they should change?

Money. Al Qaeda is heavily funded by rich families such as the Bin Ladens. They were also trained and funded by the CIA. Central Americans are not.

Sure they were. The CIA has funded and trained numerous unethical groups throughout Central America.

Everyone has a choice to change their behavior. My argument is that American interference is the motivation for the terrorism carried out against us. Al Qaeda chooses to carry out that terrorism as a response to our interference. They could choose otherwise, but they don't. But that doesn't change the fact that their motivation stems from our interference, not a difference of ideology. I don't see how my argument requires them to be reactionary zombies without free will.

Because you imply that the only hope is America's choice. The potential choices of Al Qaeda seem completely non-existant in your argument. You imply that it is America's choice to interfere in the first place and America's choice to stop interfering in the future. Both problem and solution, in your mind, are found in America's choices. Unfortunately, your argument completely fails to account for the very real choices of Al Qaeda.

This is no different than the "blame society" argument for crime and the concomittant calls for social change. While certainly individuals are subject to outside forces that shape their personality, a logical problem is found when an argument demands free will from one set of individuals in order to define complicity and determinism from another set of individuals in order to define victimization. It's inconsistent and poorly thought out.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

But your original point was that all these people want is to be left alone. Again, how does that point square with the language above.

Yes, they are saying they want to be left alone by the West and Israel. I'm assuming they're serious about what they are saying since they're attacking us. I don't know if there are other motives or reasons involved here because they aren't telling us anything else. So that's why I don't know if granting the wishes they've identified would end the conflict.

Ok, that's fair. But are you not saying that our interferences cause their aggression therefore we should change? Can you not simply flip that around and suggest that their interferences are causing our violence and therefore they should change?

Yes, I think we should change and they should change. I focus on us because we have control over that. But Al Qaeda certainly needs to change as well. Terrorism is never a justified reaction to interference.

Sure they were. The CIA has funded and trained numerous unethical groups throughout Central America.

That's a really weak point though. We trained and funded death squads to control a poor, peasant population in Central America...not to fight a superpoewer as we did in Afghanistan. There's a huge difference in the amount of funding and type of training those people got.

And aside from all that, the major difference, as I said, is money...resources. Central Americans don't have the resources. Middle Easterners do.

Because you imply that the only hope is America's choice. The potential choices of Al Qaeda seem completely non-existant in your argument. You imply that it is America's choice to interfere in the first place and America's choice to stop interfering in the future. Both problem and solution, in your mind, are found in America's choices. Unfortunately, your argument completely fails to account for the very real choices of Al Qaeda.

I'm not trying to imply that the only hope is America's choice. We don't control what Al Qaeda does. Like I said, leaving them alone might not stop them, precisely because of the fact that they have the choice to terrorize. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to listen to them and choose to change our ways to see if we can stop the violence. We're certainly doing the opposite right now by invading again and supporting Israel.

This is no different than the "blame society" argument for crime and the concomittant calls for social change. While certainly individuals are subject to outside forces that shape their personality, a logical problem is found when an argument demands free will from one set of individuals in order to define complicity and determinism from another set of individuals in order to define victimization. It's inconsistent and poorly thought out.

Ultimately, people are responsible for what they do. We are responsible for creating the motivation for others to terrorize us. Al Qaeda is responsible for choosing terrorism as their method of attack. Getting into this free wills argument is silly. You could use it both ways for all kinds of situations. I mean you have the free will to walk on a street sidewalk. Let's say say someone chooses to push you out into the street, and you get injured by an oncoming car. Would it be ok for him to say "well you have the free will to choose whether or not to walk on the sidewalk, so it's not my fault you got injured"? No. It's a silly academic-type argument that doesn't apply to anything realistic.

RainDog

Damn. I almost couldn't make it past the first use of "Anti-Semitism." I never realized how much I hate Jews. How much I really blamed on them.

And here, I come to find out it's all about their hatred of my ........
....... Frrrreeeeeeeddddddooooommmmmm.!...!...!!!.......

Of course, one could say that it's possible to despise an ideology while at the same time disagree with the - ahem - need -cough - to spend billions blowing the holy hell out of them while at the same time making an investment in future reasons to blow the holy hell out of them. In fact, I think it a tenable argument to say blowing the holy hell out of them is why we have to blow the holy hell out of them.

But would they stop if we did? Probably not at first. Our little Iraq adventure will guarantee returns on this investment for years to come whether we stay there or not. No. The best all around way to protect ourselves from terrorism is through law enforcement (a la the British, who seem to have had a good spot of success not long ago) and by keeping our military here and ready for real threats. Ready - not preemptive. No good protecting yourself with an empty gun.

But Iraq was a real threat.
Or, but we thought Iraq was a real threat.

Or, and this one's a gem, we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here. Disregard that we could have done the same thing from Afghanistan ("no we couldn't, no we couldn't" - sure) , or that they weren't really "there" to begin with. Sure, I'll admit that people in and around Iraq hate us; but that's no reason for war - and, despite the fact that Saddam was/is an evil prick, he never threatened U.S. soil, and most of his evil days were behind him (you know, when he was on our side - which is an interesting side note. We support Saddam when he's at his most nefarious - and invade when he starts calming down. No mixed messages there, right? Knowing that, it's not to hard to see how Iraqis could hate Saddam, be relieved that he's gone, yet still hold some animosity toward the U.S.).

But what about Israel? We gotta protect Israel (with rhetoric, of course). Well, to me, it looks as though Israel is capable (and more than willing) to protect itself. So if you want to lend verbal support, it's no skin off my back. It's not like Hezbollah is a model to route for. But, then, neither is Israel. Me? I'll sit back and say they're both working to secure their own demises - and realize, in comfort, that not supporting Israel isn't the same as anti-Semitism.

farfromglorified

Saturnal wrote:

Yes, they are saying they want to be left alone by the West and Israel. I'm assuming they're serious about what they are saying since they're attacking us. I don't know if there are other motives or reasons involved here because they aren't telling us anything else. So that's why I don't know if granting the wishes they've identified would end the conflict.

But they are telling us something else. They're telling us that our existence is what they wish to end, not just our "interference". I posted just two examples of that above. Did you read them? Do they not matter? Should we only listen to these extremists when they're telling us what's wrong with our actions?

Yes, I think we should change and they should change. I focus on us because we have control over that. But Al Qaeda certainly needs to change as well. Terrorism is never a justified reaction to interference.

This is all cool.

That's a really weak point though. We trained and funded death squads to control a poor, peasant population in Central America...not to fight a superpoewer as we did in Afghanistan. There's a huge difference in the amount of funding and type of training those people got.

It is a huge difference. South American's got and continue to get more money and more training.

And aside from all that, the major difference, as I said, is money...resources. Central Americans don't have the resources. Middle Easterners do.

What resources? The few thousand bucks it takes to build a bomb and plant it somewhere? The few thousand bucks it takes to hijack an airplane? Again your argument must deny choice and therefore deny an ideology that leads to choices. But you cannot whitewash the different reactions that stem from different ideologies.

I'm not trying to imply that the only hope is America's choice. We don't control what Al Qaeda does. Like I said, leaving them alone might not stop them, precisely because of the fact that they have the choice to terrorize. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to listen to them and choose to change our ways to see if we can stop the violence. We're certainly doing the opposite right now by invading again and supporting Israel.

I agree.

Ultimately, people are responsible for what they do. We are responsible for creating the motivation for others to terrorize us. Al Qaeda is responsible for choosing terrorism as their method of attack.

Agreed.

Getting into this free wills argument is silly. You could use it both ways for all kinds of situations. I mean you have the free will to walk on a street sidewalk. Let's say say someone chooses to push you out into the street, and you get injured by an oncoming car. Would it be ok for him to say "well you have the free will to choose whether or not to walk on the sidewalk, so it's not my fault you got injured"? No. It's a silly academic-type argument that doesn't apply to anything realistic.

Actually the silly "academic-type" argument is the one that now requires we must sympathize rather than empathize with that which hates us. It's the argument that believes one party is culpable for their free actions but another is not. It's the argument that believes two cultures are equal even while they're different.

Regardless, you got us into this "free will" stuff by suggesting that Americans' free will to change is the solution without any initial mention of Al Qaeda's (and others') similar choice to change.

Clarified, I'm much more comfortable with the argument you're making.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

But they are telling us something else. They're telling us that our existence is what they wish to end, not just our "interference". I posted just two examples of that above. Did you read them? Do they not matter? Should we only listen to these extremists when they're telling us what's wrong with our actions?

No, you posted an example of someone saying Israel needs to be obliterated, and another example of someone saying he's terrorizing because he wants to go to heaven when he dies. There was nothing about ending U.S. existence.

But I'll save you some trouble of finding another quote, because it's obvious that there are statements put out there like "death to America". That doesn't change the fact that they are pissed about what we're doing in the Middle East. I believe that is what's driving them to say those things and attack us, not some difference in ideologies.

It is a huge difference. South American's got and continue to get more money and more training.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree there. We don't fund the peasant victims in Central America, we fund the oppressive armies and client regimes. So the two situations really aren't comparable. It's a bad analogy to say Russia is to U.S.-funded Mujahadeen as U.S.-funded Central American death squads is to poor peasants. It doesn't make sense.

Actually the silly "academic-type" argument is the one that now requires we must sympathize rather than empathize with that which hates us. It's the argument that believes one party is culpable for their free actions but another is not. It's the argument that believes two cultures are equal even while they're different.

Well it's not my argument that we must sympathize with anyone, or that only we are responsible for the violence coming out of this conflict, or that our two cultures are equal. That's why I agree...it's a silly argument.

OutOfBreath

I read up to the point where the author lumped Hizbollah and Hamas together with global jihadists, and terrorists inside western nations. By then it was clear that the author had no clue, but was on an islamic crucifixion (sp?) trip.

I glimpsed the end of it where (surprise surprise) the "global left" (so as to make sure you get them all) is to blame for various nations' "complacency" and "unwillingness" to do what they must. Bullcrap. If anything has been shown through history it is that especially Israel doesnt give a fuck who it rubs the wrong way, and America hasn't actually been unwilling to boldly go forth under the current administration.

Partisan hot air. Gotta love it.
Perhaps there was something worthwhile inbetween the start and the end, in that case, both start and ending is unrelated to the main part of it.

Peace
Dan

lalalalaaaaaaaa

OutOfBreath wrote:

I read up to the point where the author lumped Hizbollah and Hamas together with global jihadists, and terrorists inside western nations. By then it was clear that the author had no clue, but was on an islamic crucifixion (sp?) trip.

I glimpsed the end of it where (surprise surprise) the "global left" (so as to make sure you get them all) is to blame for various nations' "complacency" and "unwillingness" to do what they must. Bullcrap. If anything has been shown through history it is that especially Israel doesnt give a fuck who it rubs the wrong way, and America hasn't actually been unwilling to boldly go forth under the current administration.

Partisan hot air. Gotta love it.
Perhaps there was something worthwhile inbetween the start and the end, in that case, both start and ending is unrelated to the main part of it.

Peace
Dan

Yeah, this is also a good point. If you see the typical partisan catch phrases, it's most likely not something you want to invest your time in reading.

NCfan

OutOfBreath wrote:

I read up to the point where the author lumped Hizbollah and Hamas together with global jihadists, and terrorists inside western nations. By then it was clear that the author had no clue, but was on an islamic crucifixion (sp?) trip.

I glimpsed the end of it where (surprise surprise) the "global left" (so as to make sure you get them all) is to blame for various nations' "complacency" and "unwillingness" to do what they must. Bullcrap. If anything has been shown through history it is that especially Israel doesnt give a fuck who it rubs the wrong way, and America hasn't actually been unwilling to boldly go forth under the current administration.

Partisan hot air. Gotta love it.
Perhaps there was something worthwhile inbetween the start and the end, in that case, both start and ending is unrelated to the main part of it.

Peace
Dan

Fair enough.... I took out the part that was particularly interesting to me.

"Hatred and murder are self-realization because they impart grandeur to Islamic extremists--the sense of being God's chosen warrior in God's great cause. Hatred delivers the extremist to a greatness that compensates for his ineffectuality in the world. Jews and infidels are irrelevant except that they offer occasion to hate and, thus, to experience grandiosity. This is why Hezbollah--Party of God--can take no territory and still claim to have won. The grandiosity is in the hating and fighting, not the victory.

And death--both homicide and suicide--is the extremist's great obsession because its finality makes the grandiosity "real." If I am not afraid to kill and die, then I am larger than life. Certainly I am larger than the puny Westerners who are reduced to decadence by their love of life. So my hatred and my disregard of death, my knowledge that life is trivial, deliver me to a human grandeur beyond the reach of the West. After the Madrid bombings a spokesman for al Qaeda left a message: "You love life, and we love death." The horror is that greatness is tied to death rather than to achievement in life.

The West is stymied by this extremism because it is used to enemies that want to live. In Vietnam, America fought one whose communism was driven by an underlying nationalism, the desire to live free of the West. Whatever one may think of this, here was an enemy that truly wanted to live, that insisted on territory and sovereignty. But Osama bin Laden fights only to achieve a death that will enshrine him as a figure of awe. The gift he wants to leave his people is not freedom or even justice; it is consolation.

White guilt in the West--especially in Europe and on the American left--confuses all this by seeing Islamic extremism as a response to oppression. The West is so terrified of being charged with its old sins of racism, imperialism and colonialism that it makes oppression an automatic prism on the non-Western world, a politeness. But Islamic extremists don't hate the West because they are oppressed by it. They hate it precisely because the end of oppression and colonialism--not their continuance--forced the Muslim world to compete with the West. Less oppression, not more, opened this world to the sense of defeat that turned into extremism."

What do you think? It makes a lot of sense to me. I do not see how it is wrong, and I'm looking.

OutOfBreath

NCfan wrote:

Fair enough.... I took out the part that was particularly interesting to me.

"Hatred and murder are self-realization because they impart grandeur to Islamic extremists--the sense of being God's chosen warrior in God's great cause. Hatred delivers the extremist to a greatness that compensates for his ineffectuality in the world. Jews and infidels are irrelevant except that they offer occasion to hate and, thus, to experience grandiosity. This is why Hezbollah--Party of God--can take no territory and still claim to have won. The grandiosity is in the hating and fighting, not the victory.

And death--both homicide and suicide--is the extremist's great obsession because its finality makes the grandiosity "real." If I am not afraid to kill and die, then I am larger than life. Certainly I am larger than the puny Westerners who are reduced to decadence by their love of life. So my hatred and my disregard of death, my knowledge that life is trivial, deliver me to a human grandeur beyond the reach of the West. After the Madrid bombings a spokesman for al Qaeda left a message: "You love life, and we love death." The horror is that greatness is tied to death rather than to achievement in life.

Nothing new here. Honour through death is as old as war itself. One can wonder whay people choose to be soldiers in the first place, assuming they're all not just doing it for the great pay. To kill, and also to die for what you believe in, isn't that radical, new, nor divergent. The motivation perhaps is.

The West is stymied by this extremism because it is used to enemies that want to live. In Vietnam, America fought one whose communism was driven by an underlying nationalism, the desire to live free of the West. Whatever one may think of this, here was an enemy that truly wanted to live, that insisted on territory and sovereignty. But Osama bin Laden fights only to achieve a death that will enshrine him as a figure of awe. The gift he wants to leave his people is not freedom or even justice; it is consolation.

Speculation. But of course there is differences as to Vietnam, which was a conventional territorial war for the most part, and an enemy that has no base, no center, no territory to strike at.

White guilt in the West--especially in Europe and on the American left--confuses all this by seeing Islamic extremism as a response to oppression. The West is so terrified of being charged with its old sins of racism, imperialism and colonialism that it makes oppression an automatic prism on the non-Western world, a politeness. But Islamic extremists don't hate the West because they are oppressed by it. They hate it precisely because the end of oppression and colonialism--not their continuance--forced the Muslim world to compete with the West. Less oppression, not more, opened this world to the sense of defeat that turned into extremism."

Highly speculative the end there. The extremism isn't merely the response towards oppression, and several of the backmen has very questionable motives, for sure. But a climate of oppression in the region fuels extremism. It's too simplistic to blame it all on the west, as it also is blind to disregard it. That this comes from less oppression I wouldn't agree with. In that case it's more like "they could only put a lid on it for so long".

I think it's wrong to view this as a global something or other, when the reasoning behind most of the groups and jihadists are almost exclusively local, and very often directed towards oppressive regimes and perceived occupants.

In conclusion, I dont buy it. Too simplistic, and too keen on directing perceived guilt onto anyone else. And an underlying tone that if we would just whoop all their asses but good militarily and squelch the pinko-commies that would oppose that, it would all go away. That's the tone I'm picking up here.

Peace
Dan

callen

Saturnal wrote:

Radical Islamic extremeists have the goal of being left alone by the West and Israel. There's no ideology involved here. If you want to understand why there are Islamic terrorists attacking us, you should listen to them, and not some college professor. It's not rocket science.

the only problem is that the wests encroachment into Islam will happen...its inevitable....so this fight is in vain. ..course all religions are under attack....and the more radical from the "western norm" the faster it will change. Fundementalist Muslims know this and see this as the fight to the death.....

let me know if you agree with this......you may have a better vantage point than I. I'm not being sarcastic mind you.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

callen wrote:

the only problem is that the wests encroachment into Islam will happen...its inevitable....so this fight is in vain. ..course all religions are under attack....and the more radical from the "western norm" the faster it will change. Fundementalist Muslims know this and see this as the fight to the death.....

let me know if you agree with this......you may have a better vantage point than I. I'm not being sarcastic mind you.

Well I guess I just don't agree that Muslims are attacking us because they're concerned about western integration with the Middle East. We've done business with them for a long time and saw no attacks. That may be a background issue, but I think the reasons we're being attacked NOW are different. And those are the reasons to focus on and see how we can eliminate them.

NCfan

OutOfBreath wrote:

Nothing new here. Honour through death is as old as war itself. One can wonder whay people choose to be soldiers in the first place, assuming they're all not just doing it for the great pay. To kill, and also to die for what you believe in, isn't that radical, new, nor divergent. The motivation perhaps is.


Speculation. But of course there is differences as to Vietnam, which was a conventional territorial war for the most part, and an enemy that has no base, no center, no territory to strike at.


Highly speculative the end there. The extremism isn't merely the response towards oppression, and several of the backmen has very questionable motives, for sure. But a climate of oppression in the region fuels extremism. It's too simplistic to blame it all on the west, as it also is blind to disregard it. That this comes from less oppression I wouldn't agree with. In that case it's more like "they could only put a lid on it for so long".

I think it's wrong to view this as a global something or other, when the reasoning behind most of the groups and jihadists are almost exclusively local, and very often directed towards oppressive regimes and perceived occupants.

In conclusion, I dont buy it. Too simplistic, and too keen on directing perceived guilt onto anyone else. And an underlying tone that if we would just whoop all their asses but good militarily and squelch the pinko-commies that would oppose that, it would all go away. That's the tone I'm picking up here.

Peace
Dan

I think you may have overlooked the point. The U.S. does not fight because of its ineffectuality in the world. That is what the author is trying to assert, that these groups fight to vindicate themselves - to vindicate their failure. And that by fighting and dying they are proving something. This is quite different from the U.S.

Colonialism ended decades ago, yet this region of the world still cannot function properly. It is not becuase of the U.S. or Israel either. Sure, they have contributed to the dysfunction, but the buck stops with the people who live there. Well, with mass communication technology - it is very easy for the people who live there to be reminded daily of their failures to feed, house, cloth and educate their populations.

Sure, they could probably lay down their arms and find a peace with the U.S., but they don't want to do that. They need to defeat the U.S. (namely get us to leave the region) in order to feel vindicated.

if we would leave, their societies will begin to liberalize on their own. Allbeit that not all nations will liberalize at the same rate due to oppressive regines like Iran. We might have to wait another 50 years for some coutries....

It's very similar to groups of blacks in the U.S. that blame all of their problems on white's or the government. Sure they were oppressed, but that doesn't mean they are going to blow themselves up over it. It doesn't mean they want to destroy the system and build a new one, more to their liking.

Millions of blacks have gotten over the past and learned how to succeed in the present and the future. But these radical Muslims do not want to do this.

This idea is no more speculative than anything else. Saying that it is wrong because it is "too simplistic" isn't a valid reason.

Cosmo

miller8966 wrote:

Arab media is 10x worse than american media. AL Jazzera is a propaganda station yet the people of the islamic world eat it up. The reality of the middle east is that the jews are right and the muslims are wrong...its pretty simple

...
It is a simplistic point of view, as given by the above statement, that gets America in the shit she finds herself in. The opinion that everything is black and white and can be defined as good versus evil. Let's posse up and ride out and do good from the barrel of a gun and MAKE them towel-headed, camel jockeys be good or die.
Have fun sending your kids off to the fucking 126 degree desert heat in order to fulfill your narrow view of the world.

OutOfBreath

NCfan wrote:

I think you may have overlooked the point. The U.S. does not fight because of its ineffectuality in the world. That is what the author is trying to assert, that these groups fight to vindicate themselves - to vindicate their failure. And that by fighting and dying they are proving something. This is quite different from the U.S.

Colonialism ended decades ago, yet this region of the world still cannot function properly. It is not becuase of the U.S. or Israel either. Sure, they have contributed to the dysfunction, but the buck stops with the people who live there. Well, with mass communication technology - it is very easy for the people who live there to be reminded daily of their failures to feed, house, cloth and educate their populations.

Sure, they could probably lay down their arms and find a peace with the U.S., but they don't want to do that. They need to defeat the U.S. (namely get us to leave the region) in order to feel vindicated.

if we would leave, their societies will begin to liberalize on their own. Allbeit that not all nations will liberalize at the same rate due to oppressive regines like Iran. We might have to wait another 50 years for some coutries....

It's very similar to groups of blacks in the U.S. that blame all of their problems on white's or the government. Sure they were oppressed, but that doesn't mean they are going to blow themselves up over it. It doesn't mean they want to destroy the system and build a new one, more to their liking.

Millions of blacks have gotten over the past and learned how to succeed in the present and the future. But these radical Muslims do not want to do this.

This idea is no more speculative than anything else. Saying that it is wrong because it is "too simplistic" isn't a valid reason.

Well, jammed in between the let's-lump-anything-remotely-muslim-and-counter-to-our-interests-together start, and the ending of "if only those damn lefties would get a grip, and let us do our thing"(with clear adress I imagine against vicious democrats and their ilk), it kind of loses a lot of credibility.

What you say here sounds much more reasonable, even if I dont think I wholly support that view. It sitll paints with a way too broad brush the islamic parts of the world, and it's population. The accentuation still is not muslim extremists but rather muslim extremists.

But what you say here, which is reasonable mostly, is not what I got from the piece skimming over it.

Peace
Dan

callen

Saturnal wrote:

Well I guess I just don't agree that Muslims are attacking us because they're concerned about western integration with the Middle East. We've done business with them for a long time and saw no attacks. That may be a background issue, but I think the reasons we're being attacked NOW are different. And those are the reasons to focus on and see how we can eliminate them.

Just curious as to what you think are the reasons for this new violence...by the fundementalists. In 200 years we'll be a little more vanilla than we are now....globalism is a good thing in my book and the sooner we're all one happy family the better....and yes I feel this world is changing because of gobalization.

lalalalaaaaaaaa

callen wrote:

Just curious as to what you think are the reasons for this new violence...by the fundementalists. In 200 years we'll be a little more vanilla than we are now....globalism is a good thing in my book and the sooner we're all one happy family the better....and yes I feel this world is changing because of gobalization.

I think the reasons are what I mentioned before...our recent and more direct interferences with Middle East affairs: increased support for Israel, and direct military invasions.