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.

Comment by TerrytheTurtle

mmmm…wishful thinking from my part, then.

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.

See post #42 – TP cleaned it up.

Comment by Juan C — September 18, 2007 @ 2:59 pm

Afternoon, Juan. BAD troll infestation today.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.