Abizaid: In ‘The Battle Of Words,’ Phrases Like ‘Islamic Extremism’ Alienate ‘Mainline Islam’
Abizaid: In ‘The Battle Of Words,’ Phrases Like ‘Islamic Extremism’ Alienate ‘Mainline Islam’
In July, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani complained that Democratic presidential candidates avoided using formulations of the term “Islamic extremists,” saying “I can’t imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist“:
“During their two debates they never mentioned the word Islamic terrorist, Islamic extremist, Islamic fascist, terrorist, whatever combination of those words you want to use, (the) words never came up,” Giuliani said Tuesday in Virginia Beach. “Maybe it’s politically incorrect to say that. I don’t know. I can’t imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist. You don’t insult anyone who is Islamic who isn’t a terrorist.“
In August, Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said he worries that candidates “don’t use the term ‘Islamist extremism’ or ‘Islamist terrorism’ in the debates.” He said it was “a problem” of “political correctness.”
The hawkish logic of Giuliani and Lieberman was contradicted yesterday by former CENTCOM Commander Gen. John Abizaid, who said in a speech that “even adding the word Islamic” makes it “very, very difficult” to “work together” with mainline regional leaders to keep extremism “from becoming mainstream.” Abizaid was speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the role of the military in counterterrorism. Watch it:
While hawks like Giuliani and Lieberman push to ratchet up the rhetoric, people like Abizaid realize that recklessly conflating Islam with extremism is counterproductive to actually addressing the problem of terrorism, as it alienates necessary allies in the Muslim world.
Transcript:
ABIZAID: I mean, even adding the word Islamic extremism, or qualifying it to Sunni Islamic extremism, or qualifying it further to Sunni Islamic extermism as exemplified by government such as Bin Laden, all make it very, very difficult because the battle of words is meaningful, especially in the Middle East to people. And so, I do think, and I had a chance to get to know many of the regional leaders out there. They clearly understand that we, collectively, are fighting a problem that they don’t want to win, that we don’t want to win. The problem that we have to face is how do we work together to keep this problem from becoming mainstream. [...]
The key is to figure out how we don’t turn this into Samuel Huntington’s Battle of Civilization’s and we work toward an area where we respect mainstream Islam. There’s nothing Islamic about Bin Laden’s philosophy, there’s nothing Islamic about suicide bombing. I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It’s not that, it doesn’t need to be that.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
A man with a real head above his shoulders.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:42 amBetter look out, gen, or Bsh will fire you! Oh, wait, you’ve already retired.
Well, then, let the Swiftboating begin!!!
September 18th, 2007 at 11:43 am<pedant>
‘wrecklessly’ in the above lede should be ‘recklessly’.
</pedant>
September 18th, 2007 at 11:44 amWrecklessly invading a Muslim nation, also plays into the hands of the extremists, who want the Islamic world to believe it is under attack by the Christian west.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:44 amWrecklessly invading a Muslim nation, also plays into the hands of the extremists, who want the Islamic world to believe it is under attack by the Christian west.
Comment by Krazny — September 18, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Well, if they would just back away from the oil, give up their sovereign rights, allow all those hard installations to remain and learn to speak English, then they won’t get hurt anymore.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:48 amWow. The Fox Republican officials and politicians have been tossed out of majority rule in large part for their corruption and they STILL are 80% of the worst, most slimeball corrupt politicians in Congress. Man you’ve got to give those frops credit – it’s really hard work to keep up all those bribes and abuses of power when you’re not even in power!
A+ on keeping up the corruption you vile sleezebucket frops. That’s almost as admirable as you covering for our rudderless, more of the same, lamo surge strategy that keeps killing more and more Americans each month. More corruption. No achievable plan for success in Iraq. Let’s see what happens to all you frops next election. You’ll get my vote over my dead body.
http://www.citizensforethics.org/node/30131
September 18th, 2007 at 11:50 amDarn. He didn’t say anything about not saying “Islamofacism”. I guess the trolls will continue to use that insanely stupid term.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:51 amRudy and Joe are determined to get the entire world pissed off at us. Thanks guys, for the US to have to fight off the whole world. A$$wholes!!!
September 18th, 2007 at 11:53 am‘wrecklessly’ in the above lede should be ‘recklessly’.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 18, 2007 @ 11:44 am
Why? “Wrecklessly” is so much more accurate… Not to mention poetic!
September 18th, 2007 at 11:58 amI disagree slightly with Abizaid.
I think it is okay to call Islamist terrorists just that. They apply a radical interpretation of Islam and use it to justify acts of terrorism.
What has f*cked everything up is Chymp’s response to 9/11 attacks… a response that has made little apparent attempt to make clear that our beef is not with Muslims, but with a bunch of psychopaths that use the cover of Islam to justify murder.
Yes, there are people who use certain language ill-advisedly, but the reason this has led to grave problems is because much of the Muslim world is not inclined to give us the benefit of the doubt when our leaders say potentially inflamatory things about Islam. And really because of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Abizaid had a point, but it’s not the key one.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:59 amI think you mean chickenhawks like Giuliani and LIEberman
September 18th, 2007 at 11:59 amBarney frank, john murtha and the fbi bribe video, reid and his forgetting to pay taxes on capital gain, Hillary and Hsu money scandle. the former gay gov gov of nj and his paid lover- any thats just a few of the most corrupt leftie in congress- dont give me this bs that this is a repub problem, its both, and we need ot vote them all out
September 18th, 2007 at 11:59 amHow about mainstream Islam worrying a little more about how Islamic extremists portray their religion, and a little less about how U.S. politicians protray radical Islam?
Radical Islam is what it is: A terrorist threat bent on either converting or killing all who oppose it.
If Islam doesn’t want to be associated with their radical fringe, then they need to step up to the plate and take care of the problem themselves. Then the rest of the world wouldn’t have to take care of it for them.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:01 pmLooks like Abizaid will be going to Gitmo now as a “guest”.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pmI wonder how Lieberman reacts to the phrase ‘extreme Zionism’ in reference to the behavior of Israel and it’s American backers?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:03 pmComment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Dawg! Howza Neuticlesâ„¢ hangin’???
September 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pmRadical Islam is what it is: A terrorist threat bent on either converting or killing all who oppose it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Not unlike radical “Christianity”, huh?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pm“Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Dawg! Howza Neuticles™ hangin’???
Comment by TheRepublicofStupidity — September 18, 2007 @ 12:06 pm”
And how is your conversion to Islam coming along?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:07 pmI suppose I can refer to all those “Self Righteous Christians” and only the self righteous ones would be insulted.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pmI think it is okay to call Islamist terrorists just that. They apply a radical interpretation of Islam and use it to justify acts of terrorism.
What has f*cked everything up is Chymp’s response to 9/11 attacks… a response that has made little apparent attempt to make clear that our beef is not with Muslims, but with a bunch of psychopaths that use the cover of Islam to justify murder.
Comment by Dumb_Fox — September 18, 2007 @ 11:59 am
But it also lumps all political violence by Muslims into an oversimplified category that glosses over the root causes of this violence. Most conflicts our media decribes as “Islamic terror” have very little to do with religion, and more to do with land, natural resources, political power, and historical grievances.
Describing it as a conflict with “psychopaths” also does our cause a disservice. Terrorists are no more psychotic than army soldiers – they’re just less well-equipped.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pmAnd I’m sure Mr. Bigfoot has had his finger on the pulse of the average muslim. I’m sure he’s been scouring the newspapers of the middle east to understand how much the average muslim has ignored the radical extremists.
Very simplistic of you Mr. Bigfoot. You say Radical Islam is the big threat but yet that was almost nonexistent in Iraq prior to our invasion. The “problem” was created when we created the power void in Iraq. Odds are it could be corrected by themselves (example Ahnbar).
So my question to you Mr. Bigfoot is what do you really know about the middle east and Islam?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pmRadical Islam is what it is: A terrorist threat bent on either converting or killing all who oppose it.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Not unlike radical “Christianityâ€, huh?
Comment by upside00 — September 18, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
If Christianity uses the same means as radical Islam, then you are absolutely correct.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pm“If Islam doesn’t want to be associated with their radical fringe, then they need to step up to the plate and take care of the problem themselves. Then the rest of the world wouldn’t have to take care of it for them.”
Your generalization hurts its stand even before it is accorded any sane dissection.
The same argument could be applied to _any_ radical fringe of _any_ religion out there, but we shouldn’t let this degrade into comparative religion analysis.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pmIf Islam doesn’t want to be associated with their radical fringe, then they need to step up to the plate and take care of the problem themselves. Then the rest of the world wouldn’t have to take care of it for them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Ahh, the white man’s burden. We must save Islam from itself, with our mighty bombs and guns!
September 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pm“Terrorists are no more psychotic than army soldiers – they’re just less well-equipped.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm”
Why does toasterhead hate the military?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:11 pmWhy does toasterhead hate the military?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Good spin – you’ll get your Conservatroll Merit Badge in no time with that twisted logic.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pmWhat’s next, the McVeigh talking-point from 13 years back?
Comment by Dean CT — September 18, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
no, mr. p, the more recent one, where “god” told Dubya to invade a sovereign nation, remember that little joyride into the absurd?
Thought you did.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm“Ahh, the white man’s burden. We must save Islam from itself, with our mighty bombs and guns!
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:11 pm”
I said nothing about saving Islam. Personally, I do not care about Islam.
However, if they are going to allow their most vocal and visible representatives to be the radical muslims who practice hatred and violence toward the west, then they leave us no choice other than to use “our mighty bombs and guns” to quell them.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm“While hawks like Giuliani and Lieberman push to ratchet up the rhetoric, people like Abizaid realize that recklessly conflating Islam with extremism is counterproductive to actually addressing the problem of terrorism, as it alienates necessary allies in the Muslim world. ”
I had extremely high hopes for Abizaid as our commander in Iraq – it seemed to me likely that having a native Arabic speaker as your front man would help quite a bit. And yet, his tenure in Iraq saw little to no progress on the security front. I wonder if his sensitivity hindered him in executing his mission.
Wow. I am going to get flamed for that statement, please be nice.
While I am pouring gasoline on myself here at TP, can I ask why so many get soooo pissed off at the words “Muslim Terrorists” or “Islamo-Fascism”? I mean, they are terrorists, and they are not Hindu, Christian, Jewish, Animist or any other religion – they’re Muslims! There is always a rush to point out McVeigh and Eric Randolph were right wing Christian nutjobs – what is the problem with stating the obvious? It reminds me of the uproar over the Mohammed cartoons with the bombs in his turban – hyper sensitivity usually indicates there is an uncomfortable truth people don’t want to acknowledge.
As far as Islamo-Fascism goes, what else would you call the Taliban rule in Afghanistan? Fascism: “Totalitarianism marked by right wing dictatorship and bellicose nationalism”. Osama’s goal is to recreate the Caliphate and either forcibly convert the world to Islam or kill those who won’t. He has said as much, many times. Hence, a totalitarian system whose underpinning is based on a radical and forcible impostion of Sharia law. It seems like a reasonable description, but I am sure I’ll get straightened out…
September 18th, 2007 at 12:17 pm“If Islam doesn’t want to be associated with their radical fringe, then they need to step up to the plate and take care of the problem themselves. Then the rest of the world wouldn’t have to take care of it for them.”
Your generalization intensely begs for the white-coats even before it is accorded any sane dissection.
The same premise could be applied to _any_ radical fringe of _any_ religion, but it would be unnecessary to allow ourselves to degrade this thread into a discussion of comparative religion analysis.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:21 pmKeltoi, you touch on some of the issues that should have been well thought out (and actually were when Cheney was SecDef) before we jumped into Iraq. Hindsight, something Bush doesn’t want to do but foresight isn’t exactly his strong suit either.
Is using force to counter force that was brought on by uncalled for force the answer?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pm“Terrorists are no more psychotic than army soldiers – they’re just less well-equipped.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pmâ€
Why does toasterhead hate the military?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
Good spin – you’ll get your Conservatroll Merit Badge in no time with that twisted logic.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:13 pm”
No spin involved. You said the words. I quoted them exactly as you stated them.
Your belief that soldiers are nothing more than better-equipped terrorists is obvious, or you wouldn’t have stated the same.
Your are just another liberal who despises the military. This blog is full of them.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pmHowever, if they are going to allow their most vocal and visible representatives to be the radical muslims who practice hatred and violence toward the west, then they leave us no choice other than to use “our mighty bombs and guns†to quell them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
You allow White Supremacist groups to preach their hatred and violence towards other races – how are you any better?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:22 pmI agree that we don’t need to use the word if it makes it harder for us to work with local muslim groups to kill terrorists. Either way, we all understand who the terrorists are.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:23 pmOsama? Keltoi are you suggesting we should focus on OBL? Couldn’t agree more. Why doesn’t Bush?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:24 pmMost conflicts our media decribes as “Islamic terror†have very little to do with religion, and more to do with land, natural resources, political power, and historical grievances. [...]
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
good point… so, “fill-in-the-blank extremists” …
September 18th, 2007 at 12:24 pm“iraqi extremists”? what?
…
#36 sad, infantile sulker.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:25 pmComment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 12:17 pm
Nope, I don’t see a need to ‘flame on’ here. But read again what Abizaid says: “I believe that these are huge difficulties that we need to overcome, this notion of Christianity versus Islam. It’s not that, it doesn’t need to be that”
Abizaid recognizes that using the term ‘Islamic extremists’ etc etc gives the extremists ammunition to justify their recruitment based on a perceived “Clash of Civilizations” – Abizaid is saying that it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:26 pmBut it also lumps all political violence by Muslims into an oversimplified category that glosses over the root causes of this violence. Most conflicts our media decribes as “Islamic terror†have very little to do with religion, and more to do with land, natural resources, political power, and historical grievances.
Describing it as a conflict with “psychopaths†also does our cause a disservice. Terrorists are no more psychotic than army soldiers – they’re just less well-equipped.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
It can gloss over underlying causes, but it doesn’t have to.
I agree the phrase Islamic terror is often used by lazy commentators as an umbrella term for every asymmetric war war being fought by a Muslim group – but it’s not inaccurate, for example, to call Chechnyan separatists an Islamist group. So too Kosovar Albanians, likewise Kurdish groups such as the PKK. It’s not a very illuminating description, but it isn’t fundamentally wrong, and of course it doesn’t necessarily make them terrorists either.
And let me be clear on another point – whilst I regard the planners and perpetrators of 9/11 as psychopaths (whatever the the underlying causes of their anger), I don’t regard us as in a “conflict” with them. Or we are in a fight with them inasmuch as we are be in a fight against organized crime. But it’s not a war by any sensible definition of the term.
And finally, professional soldiers – who should not be targeting civilians – are in no way equivalent to terrorists who perpetrate attacks on defenseless civilians.
Anyways, the key point is that whilst we would do well to mind our language, far more relevant is policy. Iraq is a disaster, on so many levels, and frankly no amount of carefully considered phrasing is going to change attitudes of those directly and indirectly impacted.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmComment by Dean CT
no, mr. p,…
Comment by upside00
As far as I can tell, Dean CT is NOT Mr Pee..
But they are definitely two pea’s in a Neothug pod.

September 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmLatest news from Iraq by independent journalist Michael Totten:
http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/001517.html
September 18th, 2007 at 12:27 pmClean up at post #36 – Juan C namejack in progress.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pmIs using force to counter force that was brought on by uncalled for force the answer?
Comment by hellinabucket — September 18, 2007 @ 12:22 pm
Dunno, Hell, maybe we should dig up Cain and Abel and ask them.
Which is the original uncalled for force in your equation? The Brits and the French allied with the Arabs to defeat the Turks – also Muslims – then screwed them after WW I ended. Muslim Arabs invaded and conquered huge swaths of the Christian Roman and Byzantice Empire. The Romans booted the Jews out of Israel. My point is, how far back do you go to say “You started it!” ? And most importantly, how do you unilaterally break a cycle of violence without becoming the victim of the other guy who still thinks killing is good?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWasn’t Abazaid the guy Bush and the rightywhitey’s were tauting for so long as the great military mind?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pmWhat’s wrong with using that? Hehehe….I use them all the time….Islamo…fascist…..Islamic Terrorist….Al..kayda Islamo Extremist….it’s what karl told me to use…hehe…gits them thar religo rights undies all bunched up….hehe…makes em hate them Islamo types…all of them…hehehe….heck we are doing them a favor….hehe….they should thank us for the publicity they are getting…heck I’ve made so many more Islamo al kayda terrorist extremist, hehe, see I used all of them in a row…hehe….that we are going to have terrorists up to our eye balls for years to come….karl would be proud of me…Babs get me some more pretzels.
Pull my finger…..hehehe
September 18th, 2007 at 12:28 pmNot unlike radical “Christianityâ€, huh?
Comment by upside00 — September 18, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
When was the last time that a radical Christian blew up innocent civilians and the Christian community did not speak up?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:29 pmThis is one of a few things I agree with conservatives on. Moderate Muslims need to step forward and relegate to the fringe the radicals among them. Sadly especially on the Arab Peninsula, it seems that violent radicalism is quietly accepted by the population. Consider the majority of 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Abizad is correct in stating, that we need to bring our muslim allies closer, not alienate them. If we do that by not using terms such as Islamo-facist etc, then so be it.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:31 pm“You allow White Supremacist groups to preach their hatred and violence towards other races – how are you any better?
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:22 pm”
Evidence please?
White Supremacist groups have been vilified, scourged, and relegated to fringe status. They must hide in the shadows, or band together and quietly seperate themselves from the rest of society, and their assets have been confiscated in legal case after legal case, further silencing them.
When White Supremacists commit violent acts, they are sought out and brought to justice. Many serve life terms or are on death row.
Who did it? The people of the United States.
Foriegn terrorists who commit violence toward others deserve no better.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:32 pmthe rest of the world wouldn’t have to take care of it for them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
the rest of the world, especially the US, created the problem. Your understandng of geopolitics is nonexistent. what a surprise: a rightwing moron.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pmthe key point is that whilst we would do well to mind our language,
Right on Dumb Fox – pity Chimpy missed that memo: http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
“this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile.”
What Chimpy thinks of as a ‘Crusade’ is something completely diffferent to what the Muslim world thinks: a bunch of heavily-armed religious fanatics show up out of nowhere, burn down your house rape your wife and stick your kids on pikes all the while waving some book at you which says God says it’s OK.
And the closest word in Arabic to the modern meaning of Crusade, as Chimpy thought it meant…… Jihad .
Ask yourself what you think, everytime you hear someone say the word ‘Jihad’. Could it be a heavily-armed fanatic who appears out of nowhere, blowing up your wife and kids and chopping your head off, waving some book at you which says Allah says it’s OK?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:33 pmWhen was the last time that a radical Christian blew up innocent civilians and the Christian community did not speak up?
Comment by Troll — September 18, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Oklahoma City. any other questions proving your irrelevance?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pmRemember: calling muslim suicide bombers who kill in the name of their muslim god “islamic terrorists” might force them to become suici…er….forget it.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:34 pmI have a new phrase.
Fasco-Patriotism
September 18th, 2007 at 12:35 pmWhen was the last time that a radical Christian blew up innocent civilians and the Christian community did not speak up?
Comment by Troll — September 18, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Did you miss the Iraqi War? Have you missed the news these last 4 years? Does the phrase ‘collateral damage’ mean anything to you?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:36 pm“Foriegn terrorists who commit violence toward others deserve no better.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:32 pm”
The older I get, the worse my speeling becomes….
Where’s my dictionary? Foriegn = Foreign.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pmWhat’s wrong with using that? Hehehe….I use them all the time….Islamo…fascist…..Islamic Terrorist….Al..kayda Islamo Extremist….it’s what karl told me to use…hehe…
Comment by Psycho Pres — September 18, 2007 @ 12:28 pm
Cool! I didn’t know Jon Stewart was on TP! :)
September 18th, 2007 at 12:39 pmALL religion is evil, whether you are Christian, Muslim, etc. Magic and superstition drive people to do all sorts of crazy things. i say again, ALL RELIGION IS EVIL, and YES EVEN ISLAM.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pmJuan C you are still a racist pig today as in every other day….I hope they ban you for life, you a$$wipe loser.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pmKeltoi, The “uncalled for force” I was refering to was the invasion of Iraq. It was uncalled for. It was improperly thought out. It was wrongly sold to the American public. It hasn’t been properly funded. It has inflamed the region.
Where was any killing directly affecting the United States of America prior to our invasion?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pmComment by TerrytheTurtle — September 18, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
A pity that you had to go back 1000 years to find a relevant Christian comparison; meanwhile the muslims whitewash their own conquering tendencies and instead have tunnel-vision about the Crusades.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:40 pmI agree that we don’t need to use the word if it makes it harder for us to work with local muslim groups to kill terrorists. Either way, we all understand who the terrorists are.
Comment by Roger_Roger — September 18, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
Rimshot! A redeemed GOPr. What happened to you last night? What did you have for dinner? This post is way too sane to have come from you based on your other posts, but I commend you for finally seeing the clear light! I hope it continues.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pmALL religion is evil, whether you are Christian, Muslim, etc. Magic and superstition drive people to do all sorts of crazy things. i say again, ALL RELIGION IS EVIL, and YES EVEN ISLAM.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pm“the rest of the world wouldn’t have to take care of it for them.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
the rest of the world, especially the US, created the problem. Your understandng of geopolitics is nonexistent. what a surprise: a rightwing moron.
Comment by ronjazz — September 18, 2007 @ 12:33 pm”
The usual anti-American baloney from the usual anti-American.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:41 pmWhy doesn’t Lieberman just use the terms he’s really comfortable with, like “Ragheads” or “Sandn#$$rs”?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:42 pmALL religion is evil, whether you are Christian, Muslim, etc. Magic and superstition drive people to do all sorts of crazy things. i say again, ALL RELIGION IS EVIL, and YES EVEN ISLAM.
Its not the religion, its the interpretation of the religion. There are charitable missions around the world, comprised of all faiths, whose only goal is to salvage people from lives of misery.
Madness isnt the sole purview of believers.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:44 pmMr. Bigfoot, there is no anti-American baloney. It’s been pointed out that the current tensions are a result of an ill thought out, poorly executed invasion of Iraq.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pmOklahoma City. any other questions proving your irrelevance?
Comment by ronjazz — September 18, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Ron
Dum azz the whole nation and just about every christian denomination in the nation condemned that act. Fool.
Additionally the rhetoric which was the inspiration for the act was silenced and the anti-government militias lost any credibility and most of the support they might have had. Dip.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pmWhen was the last time that a radical Christian blew up innocent civilians and the Christian community did not speak up?
Comment by Troll — September 18, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
When Chimpf*ck uses the word “Crusade” and says Jebus told him to invade Iraq and you (yes, you) Christian fanatics support the idiot to the bitter end, how is that not condoning murder in the name of your Bearded Wonder?
I think Bush tackling the Muslim world for Jesus is every bad as a suicide bomber. Same motivation, same resulting dead people. Just a lot more expensive and more effective.
Oh, and the murderer gets to keep clearing brush.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pmof course we can’t be sure that missionaries are doing it because they want to do it. they are doing it because of the baseless idea that it might lead to their salvation.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:45 pmPillboxian Gravelite sez:
I don’t have to go back 1000 years…I can find one barely 24 hours old.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:46 pmWhen White Supremacists commit violent acts, they are sought out and brought to justice. Many serve life terms or are on death row.
Who did it? The people of the United States.
Foriegn terrorists who commit violence toward others deserve no better.
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
You’re right. They should be prosecuted and tried as criminals. However, the entire point of this discussion is that when we lump them all together as “Islamofascists,” it becomes much harder to do that because we allow the “War on Terror” to be portrayed as a “War on Islam.” The “Clash of Civilizations” exists only in Ann Coulter’s head.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:46 pmRoger Roger posted something sane – when did hell freeze over?
September 18th, 2007 at 12:47 pmAnd how is your conversion to Islam coming along?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
What makes you think I’m a Moslem? I’m probably more of a Yankee than you are.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:48 pmComment by Pillboxian Gravelite — September 18, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Hello, McFly? Anyone home?
When was the last time that a radical Christian blew up innocent civilians and the Christian community did not speak up?
Comment by Troll — September 18, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
Did you miss the Iraqi War? Have you missed the news these last 4 years? Does the phrase ‘collateral damage’ mean anything to you?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — September 18, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Not 1000 years, just 4.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:49 pmOklahoma City. any other questions proving your irrelevance?
Comment by ronjazz — September 18, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
Which was what, 1996? And the perpetrator was put to death, by a jury of Christians (I am assuming something here, but I think the point holds)
Does the phrase ‘collateral damage’ mean anything to you?
Comment by TerrytheTurtle — September 18, 2007 @ 12:36 pm\
Collateral: “Of a secondary nature; subordinate.” I take your point though, Terry, dead is dead. But the entire purpose of a terrorist attack is to kill non-combatants. To equate that with our soldiers accidentally killing civilians while fighting those very terrorists who deliberately use civilians as human shields is a stretch. If we were morally equivalent to the terrorists we fight in Iraq we would have simply carpet bombed Fallujah instead of sending in the Marines. Note: I do NOT advocate carpet bombing civilians! But if Osama had nukes, do you think for one second he would not use them? That is why a nuclear Iran is so scary.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pmComment by TerrytheTurtle — September 18, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Terry
The invasion of Iraq was not done in the name of Jesus. Regardless John Paul II the leader of the single largest Christian denomination clearly objected to and condemned the invasion. Another dumb liberal talking point bites the dust.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pmComment by Buck Fush — September 18, 2007 @ 12:47 pm
I think Roger Rabbit’s name is being jacked. Normal service will be resumed shortly – he’s looking for his Risk board at the moment.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pmJuan C you are still a racist pig today as in every other day….I hope they ban you for life, you a$$wipe loser.
Comment by Buck Fush — September 18, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Dude… just so you know… that was someone else namejacking Juan C
I’m beginning to feel that TP should institute some kind of registration method or something.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pmAs far as I can tell, Dean CT is NOT Mr Pee..
But they are definitely two pea’s in a Neothug pod.

Comment by ∞Ω — September 18, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
I agree. Dean CT is a pain in the …, BUT, he’s not Mr P.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThis is one of a few things I agree with conservatives on. Moderate Muslims need to step forward and relegate to the fringe the radicals among them. Sadly especially on the Arab Peninsula, it seems that violent radicalism is quietly accepted by the population. Consider the majority of 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
Comment by Krazny — September 18, 2007 @ 12:31 pm
This is a misconception. Moderate Muslims denounce terror all the time, and many Imams have issued fatwas against al-Qa’ida and terrorism. The radicals ARE on the fringe. They’re just a very vocal fringe. They’re not “accepted” any more than the Klu Klux Klan is “accepted” by the majority of Americans.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pmThe invasion of Iraq was not done in the name of Jesus
Are you sure?
“God told me to smite [Saddam Hussein]. And I smote him.†– George W Bush to Mahmoud Abbas, 2003 – as reported by Newsweek and Haaretz.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:52 pmJuan C you are still a racist pig today as in every other day….I hope they ban you for life, you a$$wipe loser.
Comment by Buck Fush — September 18, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Why are you dumping on Juan C? He’s not even here.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pmof course we can’t be sure that missionaries are doing it because they want to do it. they are doing it because of the baseless idea that it might lead to their salvation.
True, we cant be certain of every missionary’s motivation, yet you seem to have decided it is only for personal gain. Whether or not you believe in an afterlife is irrelevant and would best be saved for another thread (I could see it reaching 1000 posts).
That being said, it doesnt change the fact that downtrodden people around the globe are saved from poverty through acts of pure religious charity. If immunizing children and operating soup kitchens are “crazy” manifestations of religion, then I say we need more of it.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:53 pmThe “Clash of Civilizations†exists only in Ann Coulter’s head.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Oh, I think it exists in the heads of Al-Qaeda, too….in a way, they are both Reactionary freaks, but I don’t know that Coulter has cut off anyones head lately…..
September 18th, 2007 at 12:54 pmIraq is a disaster, on so many levels, and frankly no amount of carefully considered phrasing is going to change attitudes of those directly and indirectly impacted.
Comment by Dumb_Fox — September 18, 2007 @ 12:27 pm
oh, i don’t know… seems one fact that many who thought the latest osama tape was a fake (besides the obvious), was the language – the lack of “flowery” words and phrasing…
would be one of the EASIEST things to try, at least…
September 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pmjust be nice and respectful…
…
When was the last time that a radical Christian blew up innocent civilians and the Christian community did not speak up?
Comment by Troll — September 18, 2007 @ 12:29 pm
The invasion of Iraq was not done in the name of Jesus. Regardless John Paul II the leader of the single largest Christian denomination clearly objected to and condemned the invasion. Another dumb liberal talking point bites the dust.
Comment by Troll — September 18, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
And stop moving the goal posts, Troll.
Radical Christian – George W Bush
September 18th, 2007 at 12:55 pmInnocent civilians – Iraqis on receiving end of an invasion deemed illegal by the UN and by any interpretation of the Nurnberg war crime trials on pre-emptive wars.
Christian Community not speaking up – **crickets chirping since 2003**
Comment by nanlichi — September 18, 2007 @ 12:45 pm
While I do not have the figures I would confidently argue that most of the anti Iraq war voices even here art TP are Christians speaking out against it.
Bush never said in any address that we were attacking for the purpose of converting them to Christianity for certainly most Christians would have opposed the war on those grounds. So get a grip.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:56 pmMy mistake I thought it was Juan C on another racist rant.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:58 pmBut the entire purpose of a terrorist attack is to kill non-combatants. To equate that with our soldiers accidentally killing civilians while fighting those very terrorists who deliberately use civilians as human shields is a stretch.
Fair enough. But then the news should stop calling every attack on the American forces (or security contractors) with an IED an “attack by terrorists”.
But if Osama had nukes, do you think for one second he would not use them? That is why a nuclear Iran is so scary.
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
But where’s the correlation between Osama and Iran? And you can’t say “they’re both islamics”, which is basically the point of this thread.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:58 pmbut I don’t know that Coulter has cut off anyones head lately…..
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Again we have: “rat poison in Souter’s creme broulee” and “rid me of this turbulent priest”
Coulter, 2004? and Henry II 1250-ish? Henry II’s ‘joke’ resulted in the martyrdom of Thomas a Becket less than 4 hours later….. people in public positions shouldn’t ‘joke’ about killing people….
September 18th, 2007 at 12:58 pmand they deleted the post of the fake Juan C
September 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pmThe problem is Toasterhead, where groups like the KKK are very much on the fringe of society, Islamic extremists, have far more tacit support both covert, and overt of the general population. Think of the South in the 20’s and 30’s when the KKK was popular, and largely in control.
September 18th, 2007 at 12:59 pm“And how is your conversion to Islam coming along?
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
What makes you think I’m a Moslem? I’m probably more of a Yankee than you are.
Comment by TheRepublicofStupidity — September 18, 2007 @ 12:48 pm”
Just carrying on the conversation from a couple daze back…
And what makes you think I need Neuticles? I probably have bigger “huevos” than you do. Hardy har har!
September 18th, 2007 at 1:00 pmWhere was any killing directly affecting the United States of America prior to our invasion?
Comment by hellinabucket — September 18, 2007 @ 12:40 pm
Um, gee, Ground Zero and the Pentagon, maybe? Whatever else you can say about the Iraq invasion, it certainly was not the cause of 9-11, and that was pretty darn violent okey-dokey. Removing Saddam as a response to 9-11 is a legit question to debate and historians will for the rest of forever, but the Iraq invasion is not the source of all violence in the Middle East historically. I am sure that was not your point.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pmI don’t have to go back 1000 years…I can find one barely 24 hours old.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — September 18, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
Ah, I see.
Could you also post a link (preferrably video) of the Blackwater contractors screaming “PRAISE JESUS!” as they engaged in that gunbattle, or perhaps an article of a leading Christian religious authority saying they approved of the killing of the Iraqi civilians as a ‘righteous’ act.
Or maybe even a grainy vid of masked Blackwater guys standing in front of a cross, holding their rifles and proclaiming their desire to kill muslims for the glory of God.
Ill wait.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:02 pmOh, I think it exists in the heads of Al-Qaeda, too….in a way, they are both Reactionary freaks, but I don’t know that Coulter has cut off anyones head lately…..
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Fair enough, but it’s not a clash between Christianity and Islam, if the latest announcement from Usama bin Laden is any indication of their aims. According to his latest address, it’s a clash between Western neo-colonialism and Middle Eastern solidarity – Islam is not the focus.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:03 pmIslam is not the focus.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 1:03 pm
But it is the excuse, and the West simply helps that excuse along.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:06 pmWho came up with this nonsense that a member of a group “has” to speak out when another member of the same group does wrong?
People with COMMON SENSE know that wrongs are done by INDIVIDUALS and not GROUPS, so there is no need for one person to condemn or apolgize for the acts of another person whether they belong to the same group or not.
What really is needed is for people to hold the individuals responsible for their crimes, like G W Bush being put on trial for his crimes against humanity.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pmnon-extremists shouldn’t be offended by “Islamic extremist;” it’s an accurate term… they should just work to differentiate themselves from the baddies…
September 18th, 2007 at 1:07 pmComment by criticalthinker — September 18, 2007 @ 1:07 pm
That’s right – I would really like to spend less time reading the weekly police blotter, so that I have to be ready with my condemnations of my fellow turtles and their nefarious crimes around town.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:10 pmI probably have bigger “huevos†than you do. Hardy har har!
Comment by O. Bigfoot — September 18, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Naaah… that’s not what yer wife told me! :-D!!! hardy-har-har!
Say, isn’t it about time for you to pull some bogus stats outta yer …, get caught, then run off and lie about?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:11 pmKeltoi, Where do you get that we have to debate the conflicts that have occured in the middle east since the dawn of time?
9/11 and any link to Iraq does not exist. There was no legitimate reason to lose our blood and treasure in Iraq. None.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:14 pmBut if Osama had nukes, do you think for one second he would not use them? That is why a nuclear Iran is so scary.
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
But where’s the correlation between Osama and Iran? And you can’t say “they’re both islamicsâ€, which is basically the point of this thread.
Comment by Luis M — September 18, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Yeah, I knew someone would call me on that when I wrote it. They at least correlate in the sense that they both embrace totalitarianism, the dreaded “Islamo-Fascism” that I thought I did such a spiffy job of defending entymologically back in post 29 – no rebuttals yet. Iran is THOUGHT to be harboring AQ who fled Afghanistan, including Saad Bin Laden. I don’t KNOW what their relationship is for certain and neither does anyone on TP. It is just that the stakes are so damn high….can you imagine a world where a nuke does take out an American city? Martial Law, Univeral Draft, nuclear counter strike would all hit the table. If you think that is fear mongering, well, honestly think about the consequences of it really happening. I think fear is appropriate.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:15 pmIt’s great to have a righty like Keltoi around, who can actually debate the points sensibly and cogently without becoming reactionary and emotional. A great change from the usual mindless drivel and flamethrowing from the wingnuts like Mr. Pee and all his fellow kool-aid drinkers… Best REAL discussion I’ve seen on this board in about a year…
September 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pmKeltoi,
Pakistan, already has nukes, and no one seems to know how many nuclear war heads are floating around unsecured in breakaway soviet republics. Saying Iran is the only place, for Osama to get nukes, is a bit out there.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pmAbi Zaid knows about Islam,and this issue thousand times more than Giuliani.
Abu Zaid visited and lived in many Arabic countries. Giuliani and Lieberman are pandering for AIPAC,that’s the difference.
Giuliani being simply a Mayor of New York does not have the knowledge about Islam,Arabs or the Middle East in general…
September 18th, 2007 at 1:22 pmHe sees the whole Middle East from the eyes of Israelis only..and that is a dangerous look at the area should he become a president.
the dreaded “Islamo-Fascism†that I thought I did such a spiffy job of defending entymologically back in post 29 – no rebuttals yet
Not sure about that yet though. Fascism is justified in this case by a perversion of Muslim law, right? In the same way ’social Darwinism’ was the prop Hitler and Mussolini used, in the same way Marxism was used by Lenin and Stalin and Mao? I’m not sure that the totalitarianism and the Islamism are related, other than as the justification….
Totalitarianism is still totalitarianism, no matter the justification. Islam was misapplied by the Taleban in the same way Darwin was misapplied by the 20th century fascists. Is that the fault of Islam and Darwin, or the Taleban and Hitler?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:24 pmhttp://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070918/ap_on_go_ot/abizaid_iran_9
“He described Iran’s government as reckless, with ambitions to dominate the Middle East.”
So does anyone think that Iran’s ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, which is a well known fact, has anything to do with how Iran intends to accomplish what Abizaid just stated above? Eventhough throughout the article, he also contradicts himself by saying that he doesn’t have a problem with a rouge nuclear armed Iranian regime?
September 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pmKeltoi, guess who was one of the biggest supporters to rid the Taliban from Afghanistan. Iran. There was common ground. Iran didn’t want the Taliban or AQ to survive in Afghanistan.
Another blunder by Bush. He took his eye off the fight against AQ and created the fight against Terror. Nameless terror. Not concrete enemies but the spectral boogeyman.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:25 pmThe problem is Toasterhead, where groups like the KKK are very much on the fringe of society, Islamic extremists, have far more tacit support both covert, and overt of the general population. Think of the South in the 20’s and 30’s when the KKK was popular, and largely in control.
Comment by Krazny — September 18, 2007 @ 12:59 pm
Support for suicide bombing and al-Qa’ida is low and dropping in most Muslim countries, according to the most recent Pew survey. In Bangladesh, Pakistan, Jordan, Indonesia, Tanzania, Turkey, Kuwait, Senegal, Morocco, and Egypt, there are fewer Muslims who view suicide bombing of civilans as “often or sometimes justified” than the 24% of Americans who view homicide bombing of civilians as “often or sometimes justified.”
September 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pmKeltoi, Where do you get that we have to debate the conflicts that have occured in the middle east since the dawn of time?
Comment by hellinabucket — September 18, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
Cause I’m a history major and it is all connected. Why do we have to pretend the history of the Middle East begins on March 20, 2003?
9/11 and any link to Iraq does not exist. There was no legitimate reason to lose our blood and treasure in Iraq. None.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 18, 2007 @ 1:14 pm
9-11 predates the invasion of Iraq. Ergo, they started it.
But see, I don’t really believe the kindergarten logic of “they started it”. THAT’s why I go so deep into history, because the human race has basically sucked from the git-go. The question is, how do you deal with the harsh reality of our own violent nature? You can’t just “give peace a chance” on a unilateral basis. That is appeasement and only leads to worse problems further down the line.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:26 pm(Rest of the comment snipped for space, but it’s all relevant)
If you think that is fear mongering, well, honestly think about the consequences of it really happening. I think fear is appropriate.
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
As Krazny put it so well, Pakistan (which is even more likely to be harboring Osama than Iran is, at least from what I’ve read on the news) already has nukes and has been at war recently with India (so having a go at some other country is not so difficult to imagine).
Fear mixed with caution is appropiate. Uneducated fear is not (and I’m not claiming it’s the case with you, Keltoi). Playing with people’s fears in order to receive support to advance someone’s agenda is worse. I’d rather have the UN spend billions looking for soviet nukes than invading Iran.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:27 pm#109
Comment by hellinabucket — September 18, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Of course they saw AQ and the Taliban as a threat to their power in the region. Iran is not looking to make peace in the Middle East they are trying to dominate it.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:28 pmSaying Iran is the only place, for Osama to get nukes, is a bit out there.
Comment by Krazny — September 18, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Never said that, and I am scared poopless about the Soviet arsenal as well as Pakistan. But that radioactive hellcat is out of the bag – once a country has nukes, they are basically untouchable. Iran getting nukes is a bad thing.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:29 pmBut, #104 being said…
“They at least correlate in the sense that they both embrace totalitarianism, the dreaded “Islamo-Fascism†” Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 1:15 pm
Cuba and China both embrace totalitarianism as well, the dreaded “Communism”. And at one time, the USSR embraced that “dreaded” socioeconomic system as well. But despite this shared “value system”, it’s abundantly clear that there’s no way the USSR and China would have cooperated to attack the USA during the cold war era — nor is there any way that if Cuba decided to use some leftover Soviet-era nukes on Miami, that China would help them do it. The real interests of these entities are so divergent that one wouldn’t risk being seen as an ally of the other.
In my view, it’s the same situation with Iran and Al Qaeda — there’s no way Iran could help AQ obtain and use nukes; Iran’s interests are to some day become a full member of the international community despite its islamist-leaning approach to government (just as China has, despite its continued communistic approach to government), while AQ’s interests are to change the world into a fundamentalist Islamic place with an Imam running it. And Iran knows that overtly (or even covertly) supporting AQ’s attempts to obtain and use nukes to further AQ’s interests will permanently damage its own interests (if not lead to Iran being wiped off the map by the international community).
So I don’t think that the simple fact that both Iran and AQ “embrace totalitarianism” or “Islamo-Fascism” (whatever that may be) is enough to draw the straight line you’re trying to draw between Iran and AQ — just because a nuclear Iran exists doesn’t necessarily mean that a nuclear AQ is just around the corner. Frankly, the concept of a nuclear Iran is scary enough in its own right — from the standpoint that Iran may ITSELF use its nukes one day — that we don’t even need to have the Osama bin Boogeyman enter into the equation…
September 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pmIt’s great to have a righty like Keltoi around, who can actually debate the points sensibly and cogently without becoming reactionary and emotional. A great change from the usual mindless drivel and flamethrowing from the wingnuts like Mr. Pee and all his fellow kool-aid drinkers… Best REAL discussion I’ve seen on this board in about a year…
Comment by The Dogfather — September 18, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Aw, shucks, thanks Dog. I go to Drudge and Newsbusters too, but why bother debating with people I agree with? I love TP, and if my right of center voice can be tolerated here there is hope for Franklin’s dream of enlightened debate as the lifeblood of the Republic after all.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:32 pmSo does anyone think that Iran’s ambitions to obtain nuclear weapons, which is a well known fact, has anything to do with how Iran intends to accomplish what Abizaid just stated above?
Comment by Tracy — September 18, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Can you kindly point us to somewhere we can check this “well known fact”? Not someone’s opinion, not some FOX News editorial, not a declaration by the US Dept. of State, but somewhere with facts.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:33 pmKeltoi, Where lies the justification for the loss of our blood and treasure? Where?
We could debate about the ebb and flow of power throughout history until the next election. You don’t even have a solid point on why we went into Iraq. In fact, your view of the constant power struggles show how impulsive Bush was to go into iraq without understanding the region.
How much more blood and treasure do we pour into the sands of Iraq before it’s realized what you are stating, that this area will continue to fight each other?
I’m for protecting the United States. Not a business venture.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:40 pmBy the way, I’m all for Keltoi to continue posting and debating.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:41 pmSo I don’t think that the simple fact that both Iran and AQ “embrace totalitarianism†or “Islamo-Fascism†(whatever that may be) is enough to draw the straight line you’re trying to draw between Iran and AQ — just because a nuclear Iran exists doesn’t necessarily mean that a nuclear AQ is just around the corner. Frankly, the concept of a nuclear Iran is scary enough in its own right — from the standpoint that Iran may ITSELF use its nukes one day — that we don’t even need to have the Osama bin Boogeyman enter into the equation…
Comment by The Dogfather — September 18, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
Fair enough, but the policy conundrum remains the same – how to stop Iran from getting the bomb? Sanctions aren’t working. Time is not on our side.
It is the classic 30’s scenario – crush Hitler when he reoccupies the Rhineland in 36 and you cause thousands of deaths and an international incident. Let him do it and he keeps on doing the same till you reach the point where the only option is waging the most catastrophic war in history in 39.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pmBush was to go into iraq without understanding the region.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Ambassador_claims_shortly_before_invasion_Bush_0804.html
Yup, I would have thought knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia, would have been ‘need to know’ information…..
September 18th, 2007 at 1:49 pm#117
Comment by Luis M — September 18, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
As soon as you explain why the IAEA is keeping tabs on Iran’s nuclear program. Why would they need to?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/30/world/asia/31cnd-nuke.html?ex=1346126400&en=11e9853dc7631090&ei=5088&partner=rssny
September 18th, 2007 at 1:54 pmFair enough, but the policy conundrum remains the same – how to stop Iran from getting the bomb? Sanctions aren’t working. Time is not on our side.
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
Yes it is. We still have no proof that Iran wants the bomb. We only have assertions by warmongering hawks on the right. If they have any desire to acquire nuclear weapons, it’s only because we’re constantly saber-rattling and arming their enemies-of-convenience Saudi Arabia and Israel.
September 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pmFair enough, but the policy conundrum remains the same – how to stop Iran from getting the bomb? Sanctions aren’t working. Time is not on our side. Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 1:49 pm
I agree — but that’s not the topic for this thread. In fact, I doubt there’s much debate that a nuclear Iran (or nuke-yoo-lar, if you prefer W’s pronunciation instead) is something we need to avoid.
The question here, however, isn’t that — it’s whether or not conflating “Islam” with “terrorism”, as has been done by this administration and many of their supporters, is at all helpful to our ultimate goal of preventing further terrorist attacks on our soil. My point was not to debate whether or not a nuclear Iran was a good thing, nor even how to prevent a nuclear Iran (or how to de-nuclearize an already nuclear Iran) — it was to further the discussion on this thread that just because Iran and Al Qaeda are both islamic entities doesn’t mean that their interests are aligned. And that is precisely why conflating Islam with terrorism by using constructions urged by Giuliani like “Islamic Terrorism” or “Islamo-Fascism” is disingenuous at best and misleading and inflammatory at worst.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:03 pmIran doesn’t really compare to Nazi Germany. The Iranian President is not terribly popular, and is fettered by a theocratic cleric group, that oversees the entire government.
Also a nuclear attack by Iran would result in the wipeout of Iran. Isreal has nuclear weapons, and Europe, Russia, and China would have to respond.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHow much more blood and treasure do we pour into the sands of Iraq before it’s realized what you are stating, that this area will continue to fight each other?
I’m for protecting the United States. Not a business venture.
Comment by hellinabucket — September 18, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
As I was debating with someone yesterday – Patriot Acting, I think – the economics of oil and the corruption of war profiteering is A cause, not the only cause, of the war. Greenspan made this point on 60 Minutes.
As to your question…..I don’t know. I DO believe in Wilsonian Idealism – America has a long history of embarking on moral crusades to aid oppressed people when their oppression doesn’t really affect our National Security. This is a cornerstone of Liberal Progressivism, BTW, Wilson and TR fathered the Progressive movement (God, those were the days! Where’d all the Good People Go?)
The Balkans is a good example. Rwanda is a good example of how crappy we feel when we don’t act, as is Darfur. Afghanistan was a twofer – we freed 25 million people from a steaming Evil regime and took out a safe haven for a deadly enemy in the process.
Saddam was a monster and there had been a slow motion genocide underway in Iraq from the time he took power. I thought it was a morally good thing to give the Iraqis a shot at self-determinate democracy. I WISH we had planned better, how I wish, for the post war era. Afghanistan’s relative success with a relatively small force obviously made the Administration foolishly cocky. And it is a tragedy.
But let me ask you this, Hell – do you really think pulling out will make America safer? And I am not a “we’ll have to fight them in the streets of Peoria if we don’t do it in Bagdhad” kinda guy, but the unintended consequences of just jamming out of there….horrendous. We CAN’T ignore the Middle East. The UN is an impotent joke. Iran hates our guts. Russia and China would love nothing more than to see us pull out, as would AQ.
It would be GREAT to get out of there. Controlled nuclear fusion power plants would be great too, as would time travel, a Pittsburgh Steelers victory in the Superbowl and a visit by the Swedish bikini team. But I have yet to hear a plausible scenario whereby the US leaving Iraq to the wolves helps our national interests. And believe me, I have been listening to the Dems closely, hence my prescence on this site.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pmBut let me ask you this, Hell – do you really think pulling out will make America safer? And I am not a “we’ll have to fight them in the streets of Peoria if we don’t do it in Bagdhad†kinda guy, but the unintended consequences of just jamming out of there….horrendous. We CAN’T ignore the Middle East. The UN is an impotent joke. Iran hates our guts. Russia and China would love nothing more than to see us pull out, as would AQ.
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 2:12 pm
Yes. A well-planned 12-18-month pullout, combined with a massive diplomatic campaign (that includes Iran and Syria) to get all the players in Iraq to the table, will make Iraq and America safer. The UN has to be involved as well. “Jamming out of there” is not physically possible since the teleporter hasn’t been invented yet, but a controlled withdrawal is necessary for our security.
I’m not advocating that we ignore the Middle East. We can’t – it is of extreme diplomatic, economic, and security importance to us. But what we can do is make ourselves an honest broker in the region, which we have not been since the 1950s.
As a student of history, you should be well aware that the current situation in Iraq and Iran is due directly to the actions of the US, starting with the CIA-backed overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953, and continuing with the CIA-backed overthrow of Iraq’s Prime Minister Qasim in the 1960s. Both of these acts were carried out not for the “good of the people” of Iran or Iraq. They were carried out to keep both countries from nationalizing their oil industries. We then permanently dug ourselves into the region when we convinced the Saudis to to sell oil exclusively in dollars, thus putting the dollar on the ol standard and guaranteeing high international demand for our currency.
Why did we invade Iraq in 2003? Because they began selling oil in euros. Why do we want to bomb Iran? Because they want to begin selling oil in euros and yen. People in both of these countries know this and know that this was our motive for invasion. The fact that Americans don’t know this is simply sad.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pmAnd that is precisely why conflating Islam with terrorism by using constructions urged by Giuliani like “Islamic Terrorism†or “Islamo-Fascism†is disingenuous at best and misleading and inflammatory at worst.
Comment by The Dogfather — September 18, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Right, back on topic.
Well, I hate to say it but two thirds of Americans think Saddam was behind 9-11, which basically means two thirds of them are idiots or simply aren’t paying attention. I apply that same logic to the fact that two thirds want us to leave Iraq right away – I reeallly doubt they have thought it through.
So: politicians will use language to manipulate the masses, a story as old as democracy. But I guess the simplest way to put it is, in “the War on Terror”, not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. I sometimes fear our PC desire to not offend anyone is going to lead to our failing to recognize how dire the situation is and therefore we will not respond with sufficient vigor. It is like Appeasement for the mentally lazy; we don’t even want to bother with knowing if we are Appeasing or for that matter what the word means.
BUT – it isn’t a point I feel super strongly about. I know how complicated the situation in the Middle East is and don’t know who won American Idol or Survivor, ever. Most Americans are the reverse. Which sucks.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pmOur best chance in Iraq will not be achieved militarily. It will be thru financial support and a build up of the basic services. We are occupiers now and will be viewed with scorn until we leave. Decrease the military footprint, increase diplomatic pressure on the surrounding countries to show them they have a vested interest in Iraq. Tone down the concept of democracy. Democracy can’t be thrust upon a country. It has to be decided by the country.
The discussions of loose federations within Iraq will most likely be the end result. you being a student of history would know that Iraq was put together by the British and there is no Nationalistic pride that can unify Iraq.
Give them the footing for their own Manifest Destiny.
Iran doesn’t hate us. They fear us. We are on 2 sides of them now and pushing them into a corner. The Iranian govt. is more complex than what their figurehead shows. just recently a mini-series of the holocaust is running on Iranian TV. Complete with unscarfed females. It’s a complete turn from what their leader was suggesting that the holocaust never happened.
We should remain vigilant against all who wish us harm. We should also use restraint until there are no other options than to unleash the full fury of our forces.
I too understand we can’t go backward. I also understand that we shouldn’t sweep under the rug the terrible mistakes this administration has done that got us where we are.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:28 pmYes it is. We still have no proof that Iran wants the bomb. We only have assertions by warmongering hawks on the right.
That and Iran’s refusal to accept lightwater reactor technology for free from various volunteer donor nations, technology that is basically sealed and cannot be converted to nuclear weapons-grade material production.
Iran is and has been offered the means to create a civilian nuclear power program for pennies on the dollar, they have refused. Free equipment, free technology, free expert instruction from various nuclear agencies; why would Iran refuse all of that if electricity generation is all they desire?
September 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pmIn July, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani complained that Democratic presidential candidates avoided using formulations of the term “Islamic extremists,†saying “I can’t imagine who you insult if you say Islamic terrorist“:
Giuliani lack the empathy required to lead a diverse and multi-cultural nation. We know what happens when you are saddled with a president who lacks imagination and intellectual curiosity; we’ve suffered with it for over 6 years now. He can’t imagine who would be insulted by what he says, but readily takes offense when MoveOn asks if General Patraeus will betray us? He is not fit to be president.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:41 pm>>Yes. A well-planned 12-18-month pullout, combined with a massive diplomatic campaign (that includes Iran and Syria) to get all the players in Iraq to the table, will make Iraq and America safer.
I agree! Hooray! It will be tricky, though, and I do advocate a South Korea style residual force of 30,000 or so as a tripwire/anti-terror force. Since every candidate of both party with any chance of being Prez also favors such a force, we may as well get used to the idea.
>>As a student of history, you should be well aware that the current situation in Iraq and Iran is due directly to the actions of the US, starting with the CIA-backed overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953, and continuing with the CIA-backed overthrow of Iraq’s Prime Minister Qasim …….Why did we invade Iraq in 2003? Because they began selling oil in euros. Why do we want to bomb Iran? Because they want to begin selling oil in euros and yen. People in both of these countries know this and know that this was our motive for invasion. The fact that Americans don’t know this is simply sad.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 2:25 pm
Well aware of this history, but I draw a geopolitical conclusion from it rather than a Marxist dialectic one, i.e. most everything we did in the second half of the 20th century had the Cold War as its primary backdrop. The one major exception to this is our support of Saddam versus Khoemeni, we were moonlighting combating …oh, gee, can’t use the I-F word….um…Unhappy Muslims with Attitudeism? But we were more freaked about the Commies, hence support of the Mujhajdeen against the Sovs in Afghanistan.
Anyway, Realpolitik and Howard Zinn style its all about the money views of history can co-exist quite nicely, they are both part of the picture.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pmThere will be a need for residual forces to stay in Iraq for years.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:50 pmSo: politicians will use language to manipulate the masses, a story as old as democracy. But I guess the simplest way to put it is, in “the War on Terrorâ€, not all Muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are Muslim. I sometimes fear our PC desire to not offend anyone is going to lead to our failing to recognize how dire the situation is and therefore we will not respond with sufficient vigor.
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Not true. Not all terrorists are Muslim. This is a distortion of the truth. In Europe in 2006, out of nearly 500 terrorist attacks, only one was commited by a Muslim. The rest were separatist and leftist groups. If we’re truly fighting a “war on terror,” we need to include these groups as well. If it’s really a “war on al-Qa’ida” then we should never have invaded Iraq.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:51 pmThe one major exception to this is our support of Saddam versus Khoemeni, we were moonlighting combating …oh, gee, can’t use the I-F word….um…Unhappy Muslims with Attitudeism?
Comment by Keltoi — September 18, 2007 @ 2:46 pm
Don’t forget the other major exception to this – our trading of arms for hostages with Iran in order to support the Contras in Nicaragua.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:54 pmMy mistake I thought it was Juan C on another racist rant.
Comment by Buck Fush
Excuse me?
What do you mean by another? Where have I, and not my stupid troll, alter ego here, posted some racist rant?
BTW, this is a great thread. One of the most civilized I had read in some time here in TP.
September 18th, 2007 at 2:59 pmDon’t forget the other major exception to this – our trading of arms for hostages with Iran in order to support the Contras in Nicaragua.
Comment by toasterhead — September 18, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Right, but that was a anti-Commie thing with a side order of twisted money laundering via Iran and a dash of Israeli shennanigans. Love it when it is simple! Could’ve just not passed the Boland Amendment in the first place, but that is waaaaaaaaayyyy off topic.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:08 pmOne of the most civilized I had read in some time here in TP.
Comment by Juan C — September 18, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Afternoon, Juan. BAD troll infestation today.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:09 pmComment by Juan C — September 18, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
See post #42 – TP cleaned it up.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:13 pmThat should be a no-brainer. At least to intelligent people. Instead they have another brain fart.
It is always counter productive to join a group to a bad outcome. This is no different than race baiting or gay bashing. Maybe that answers why Republicans do this as a first resort. They just can’t help but to keep on hating.
September 18th, 2007 at 3:43 pmAfternoon, Juan. BAD troll infestation today.
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity
Comment by TerrytheTurtle
mmmm…wishful thinking from my part, then.
September 18th, 2007 at 4:14 pmTerrorism is a tactic that has been used by religious and secular groups who are weak militarily for thousands of years to accomplish political or territorial objectives, and is by no means limited to Islam.
The Immigrant Jews terrorized the Native Palestinian Arabs in Palestine in their efforts for an Israeli state (and the Arabs did likewise to keep this from happening)
Immigrant Americans terrorized the Native American Indians to drive them off their land (and they did likewise to keep this from happening)
We dropped atomic bombs on 2 cities in Japan to accelerate Japans surrender, even though their military was already demolished and they posed no threat to us. It worked, they were terrorized and immediately surrendered, but they would eventually have surrendered without the bombings. This was not terrorism in the traditional sense, since it was used by a state with a strong military who had already defeated his enemy.
Religous Fundamentalists have zero tolerance for any view but their own. They are always right since they are divinely inspired and and anyone who disagrees with their views is an enemy.
The religous leader for the Christian Fundamentalists is our President. He has done more to dismantle the separation of Church and State than any other President, and infusion of religion into government has also penetrated the Pentagon.
Islamic Fundamentalistism is no more of a danger than Christian Fundamentalism or Judeo Fundamentalism which is known as Zionism.
Every Democracy or Nationalist movement in the Middle East over the last 50 years has been subverted by the US, Iran in 1953, Nassers Egypt, Lebanon in 2006, and the Palestinian Democratically elected Hamas government, just to name a few.
We do not like Democratic governments because they represent the interests of their people, and they can not be easily controlled. We have always chose to support Totalitarian governments in its various forms because we just have to control the ruler who is not subject to public opinion. We supported the Shah, House of Saud, Saddam, even the Taliban for a time.
Fundamentalism and Democracy is like oil and water. Fundamentalist leaders seek to dictate and control..
Fortunately for us, the Islamic Fundamentalists are weak militarily. They are no threat to our security as a nation, although they can commit isolated attacks such as 9/11 and 1993. Even Iran is not the threat they are made out to be. If they were eager to control the Middle East, why have they never invested in refinery capacity. How do you fight wars past your borders without fuel. They rely on imported gasoline. Their nuclear ambitions are due to they are surrounded by enemies with nuclear power, Pakistan on one side, Israel on the other. Even if they had nuclear weapons, why would they commit suicide by using them or giving them to terrorists. The only reason to have nuclear weapons is as a deterrent from getting invaded or attacked by the US or Israel.
The 21st century’s greatest threat to peace is the worlds only superpower run by Christian Fundamentalists who see the War on Terror as some kind of Crusades, and the Middle East as the battle ground for fulfilling the biblical prophecies so that Jesus can return. Scary stuff. Add Corporatism, otherwise known as Fascism to the mix, and our lust for oil, and you have all the ingredients for a Perfect Storm and perpetual war in the Middle East.
September 18th, 2007 at 9:27 pm