There are two basic theories about the rise of terrorism. One theory says that the United States has made enemies by its one-sided support of Israel, by its propping up of Middle-East regimes that oppress their people, and by its imperialistic designs on the world’s natural resources, especially oil.
The other theory is that terrorists are bad people. They don’t need a reason to hate. They are taught from the cradle to hate Jews, Americans, and in fact all Westerners. Their religion teaches them that killing infidels is a good thing.
You know where I stand on this question, but I’d like you to consider which theory makes more sense to you.
Seriously, tell me where I’m going wrong. How much more even-handed do we need to be in the Middle East? Do we have to obliterate the state of Israel? Do you honestly believe that even if we did this, the fundamentalist Muslims would love us?
Let’s get hypothetical. Say we even agree to this ridiculous concession, “All right, the state of Israel no longer exists. You Jews can go find another land, or come to the United States, we’ll take you.” Then, would the Muslims suddenly say, “Hey, the United States is a good country. We’re not mad at them anymore.”
I doubt it. They’d still hate us. Why? Because we’re not Muslims. We’re infidels. It says right in their book (and the Muslim fundamentalists believe this literally):
“I WILL CAST TERROR INTO THE HEARTS OF THOSE WHO DISBELIEVE. THEREFORE STRIKE OFF THEIR HEADS AND STRIKE OFF EVERY FINGERTIP OF THEM. THIS IS BECAUSE THEY ACTED ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER; AND WHOEVER ACTS ADVERSELY TO ALLAH AND HIS MESSENGER - THEN SURELY ALLAH IS SEVERE IN REQUITING (EVIL). THIS - TASTE IT, AND (KNOW) THAT FOR THE UNBELIEVERS IS THE PUNISHMENT OF FIRE.” (8:12-17)
With regard to the U.S. propping up Middle Eastern regimes that persecute their people, yes, maybe we do, or at least we have, as in the Shah of Iran. In each of these cases, though, including, for example, the royal family in Saudi Arabia, the United States must make difficult decisions. Again, what would you have us do? I agree with you that I’d ask Bush to pressure Saudi Arabia to shut down its Wahhabi schools that teach hatred of the West. These madrassahs to me, are the problem. Similar schools teach children to hate in Palestine, Syria, Egypt and all over the Muslim world. They are brainwashing innocent minds into mindless killing engines. This is the premier issue that needs to be addressed in the world today.
But on the matter of the regimes themselves, what would you have us do? Support coups in Saudi Arabia and other countries that are run by monarchies and dictators? Talk about chaos. Tell me, what do you want us to do?
The last notion, that the United States intervenes in the world in order to enrich itself through oil and defense contracts, is an easy argument to make. Who profits from wars? Oil companies, because the price of oil goes up, and defense contractors.
Yes, it’s an easy argument to make, but it doesn’t make any sense. Why?
For one thing, if the United States were as imperialistic and evil as some people imagine, we would just go ahead and conquer the world. We could probably do it. We could surely seize all the world’s major oil supplies, starting with the punily defended countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar and so on. We’d be swimming in oil.
Let’s take the war in Iraq. Bush is already a millionaire. Do you really think his motive for the war is to enrich himself, or his friends, who are also millionaires? They need the money? No? So, is he waging the war to enrich defense contractors? Why? What does he gain from this? More power? He’s the most powerful man in the world. More money? Again, he doesn’t need it.
The truth is, every president wants to be a good one. They care deeply about their legacy, and their place in history. Bush is no different. What Bush wants, to the bottom of his soul, is to be a great president. He knows the war in Iraq is unpopular. So for him to stay steadfast with it is an unbelievably heroic act. Think about it. The thing he desires more than anything is to be a beloved president, and he is giving this up in order to ensure our safety. That sounds like something a good father would do. A good person. A noble individual. This man on this issue, the war in Iraq, is pretty much the closest thing we have today in the world to a saint.
I am grateful that we have such a strong and insightful leader at this dangerous time in history. I am appreciative that we live in one of the best countries in the world, the only so-called imperialistic nation that resists the imperialistic impulse. We have the power to seize assets and resources, and we don’t. Can you say that about any nation in history that was the number one power of its time? Would Napoleon have stopped himself from taking the oil fields? Would Hitler have restrained himself? No, but we do. Our thanks? We are vilified, as is our commander-in-chief. No good deed ever goes unpunished I guess.
(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.) This Post’s Technorati Tags: London bomb scheme, liquid bomb, support for Israel, Middle-East regimes, U.S. imperialism, hating infidels, fundamentalist Muslims, Quran, Wahhabi schools, madrassahs, war for oil, Iraq war, Napoleon, Hitler truth
Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone
Subscribe to my feed
Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar or below this post)
13 comments:
igor, you are so logical that I don't need to comment.
You sound very impassioned in this post my man, rightfully so, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this latest news isn't the "terrorist plot" the media is making this out to be but I'll talk about that later. Needless to say I think you basically answered your own questions.
1. The chaotic mess the US is in right now is mostly one of its own making. I say "mostly" because I think BOTH theories you talk about are correct and it's the combination of the two that makes this situation precarious.
2. Animosity toward the US in the Middle East isn't new. We can safely assume it started when the US became the first country to recognize Israel after they claimed independence in the 40's and has escalated since then in the midst of the American-made arms Israel has used to kill Arabs- sometimes justifiably, sometimes not. Getting rid of Israel won't solve the problem because the US has consistantly done things (things you mentioned already) to undermine Arab governments and the livelihoods of Arab citizens- Iraq is just the latest example as far as Arab minds are concerned. Saddam may have been an asshole who ruled with an iron fist, but most Arab leaders in history have been similar if not worse. It's not our job to rid the world of every leader that mistreats his/her subjects. If that were the case, we'd be bombing the hell out of 70% of Africa. That whole "Saddam was an evil tyrant" argument for the war doesn't fly with me.
3. There are three things that can generally be said about wealthy people, one is that they're smart, two is that they're greedy, three is that they have greedy friends. You're assuming that since the Bush family is wealthy that they stop thinking about money or how to make more of it. They STAY rich by knowing how to earn more money- and where they can't benefit they can always get someone else (someone also smart and greedy) who can. Nepotism is rampant in business AND government- again it's not what you know but WHO you know. Just because the president claims to be righteous and Christian doesn't make him so.
4. History has taught us the lesson that attempting to take over the world overtly is a recipe for disaster. Of all the vast and great empires of the past, The Turks, Romans, Egyptians, Zulus, Aztecs, Great Britain, none escaped collapse and it was mainly due to their vast sizes, dwindling funds and greed (not for money but power). I give our government credit for being smart enough to know that taking over vast parts of the world PHYSICALLY would eventually lead to the destruction of the country. The aforementioned Napolean and Hitler are both examples of that. However, taking over the world ECONOMICALLY is far more productive and beneficial.
5. You've essentially hit on one of the main causes of our current terrorism problem. Bob Marley once said "A hungry man is an angry man" and an angry man is easily manipulated into doing things he normally wouldn't do (like blowing himself up). The madrassas you refer do what every religious institution does, take the words out of the gospel (usually out of context) and twist them for their own benefit. Is it right? Hell no, but they have plenty justification as far as they are concerned. Their hatred of us is taught, not instinctual, and it's learned in some cases in schools when they're young. True Islam, like true Christianity is a religion of peace- not one of corruption and destruction. American resentment towards Arabs is also taught in school, but that school is called Fox "news", CNN, MSNBC etc. How many times have you kept your eyes intently on an Arab passanger at the airport? Is our justification any greater than theirs? I think not.
5. The president's main job is to protect his citizens. This, I agree Bush is trying desperately to do- wiretaps, survelliance, the Patriot Act etc. I don't believe though that he's exhibiting this by fighting a war in Iraq. There is STILL no proof that Iraq posed a threat to the US- no AlQaeda training camps, no WMD's, no Iraqi born terrorists caught in Europe, no links with bin Laden, no radioactive trailers, no plots from Baghdad etc etc etc. The fight was in Afghanistan and that is where 100,000 troops should have been, but he (and his administration) blew it, lost international support and instead went after Saddam on heresay. This war he's got us in is not a noble cause, it's an ego-driven oily mess that they're still trying to figure out how to clean up. It's now an image game: Leave now and the US looks like a beaten dog with it's tail between it's legs (e.g. Vietnam), stay and more men and women come home in bags, anger stateside mounts, Republicans lose credibility and elections.
Open your mind for this one....
6. Karl Rove is a fuckin genius!I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I'm very suspicious of this latest event in England. Repubs are facing a credibility crisis from the top to the bottom and now they have their "I told you so" boost. Two months out from elections and all of a sudden there is a MAJOR airline terror threat, 11 Egyptian students go missing in the US with overstayed visas, and Brittney Spears drops her baby....again (alright- maybe not). C'mon man, you have to see that there COULD be something smelly going on here. Remember, bin Laden popped up right before elections two years ago just as a subtle reminder that Dems are "weak on terrorism. How much does your boy Rove charge for a stunt like this?
Wow paz, you really are passionate on these points you've made. I think you articulate your side very well. I also think you know I disagree with you on every point. I don't want to get argumentative, not with an intelligent guy like you, so I'll try just to address a couple of issues you bring up.
1. The chaotic mess the US is in right now is mostly one of its own making. I say "mostly" because I think BOTH theories you talk about are correct and it's the combination of the two that makes this situation precarious.
I applaud you on this. At least you see there is some culpability with the Islamic fascists.
2. Animosity toward the US in the Middle East isn't new. We can safely assume it started when the US became the first country to recognize Israel after they claimed independence in the 40's and has escalated since then in the midst of the American-made arms Israel has used to kill Arabs- sometimes justifiably, sometimes not.
So, we get back to the idea that recognizing Israel was a bad idea, a favorite igor point. Jews had nowhere to go during the Holocaust. Every country, including the U.S., refused them entry. They couldn't stay in Germany. They had their historical home in Israel, complete with non-interrupted settlements of thousands of years.
Hatred of Jews was nothing new. Arabs have been hating them since the time of Christ. If America is hated for doing the right thing for the Jews, so be it. The Jews are a good people.
3. There are three things that can generally be said about wealthy people, one is that they're smart, two is that they're greedy, three is that they have greedy friends.
Wow, this and some of your other following points do typify the modern left's ideas about wealth. Hardly capitalistic. Hardly in the mold of John F. Kennedy and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. And, quite cynical. What a generalization!
I give our government credit for being smart enough to know that taking over vast parts of the world PHYSICALLY would eventually lead to the destruction of the country.
So, I guess Bush is pretty clever, huh? He wants to dominate the world, and yet he'll do it not by taking over countries, but by waging war on countries like Iraq so we can gain control economically? Very subtle. Good strategy. If I wanted to dominate the world economically, though, I'd find a way that would make me more popular, but I guess that's just me.
There is STILL no proof that Iraq posed a threat to the US- no AlQaeda training camps, no WMD's, no Iraqi born terrorists caught in Europe, no links with bin Laden, no radioactive trailers, no plots from Baghdad etc etc etc.
Saddam did have WMD's. They've even found some lately, which was ignored by the liberal press. Iraq did have a connection with Al-Queda. Zarqawi was even living in Iraq before the Iraqi invasion. Saddam was giving $25,000 to every family of suicide bombers in Israel.
Two months out from elections and all of a sudden there is a MAJOR airline terror threat, 11 Egyptian students go missing in the US with overstayed visas.
Now you're in loony territory. I wonder why there are never any facts to support assertions like this. You'd think that of all the 24 arrested terrorists, one of them might buckle and give up the fact that Carl Rove was paying him. Surely the New York Times, your favorite newspaper, would uncover the murky links that would lead directly to Rove and this marvelous plot.
You're a conspiracy theory guy. I bet you believe the Jews planned 9/11.
You are right about one thing, though. This will help the Republicans in November. It will show the wavering Independents that Bush has been right all along. We are at war. They want to kill us. They hate us because we're infidels.
Thanks for commenting. Always good to hear from you, paz y amour.
.
rock said:
Saddam did have WMD's. They've even found some lately, which was ignored by the liberal press. Iraq did have a connection with Al-Queda.
WHAT ?! AGAIN ?!
Exercise: we have an idiot, who is sure that Earth is flat, and all pictures of round earth from space are just lies of liberal (hmm, let's say heretical) press. Question: How should one convince that individual that his ideas about form of Earth are wrong?
Tell me, how, rock, and then I would convince you that you are wrong about Saddam, WMD and AlQuaeda....
No, I am not a muslim, neither I am an anti-semite.
Are you a jew?
igor, the Jews had nowhere to go. What do you want them to have done, died? Send them to Africa? Based on what claim there?
Comparing the Muslim's claim to Spain is not analagous. The Muslims have plenty of mileage on the earth, plenty of places to settle. The Palestinians in fact, were kicked out of Jordan because they were just as disagreeable there as they are in Israel. King Hussein wouldn't put up with their crap.
They are not agreeable neighbors, not nice people. Nobody wants them. Not one Arab nation offers them territory. They know what they'll get if they do.
Yes, the invasion of millions of people into your country who don't speak your language and who have a different culture, can be upsetting to the native population. Kind of like America and Hispanics, don't you think? How do you feel about this issue? Of course, I don't see you thinking about America at all in your comments. I don't know who you do care for.
Tell me the truth, igor, are you a Muslim?
.
I asked you 3 times whether you are a jew. And 3 times you dodged this question and danced around it. From this I make the conclusion that, yes, you are a jew.
Ok, that explains a lot - obviously you do all you can for your "cause", as you see fit - like running this "blog" full of lies and shameless rove-like propaganda.
This also explains why you put interests of Israel above interests of your own country (I take it you are a citizen or resident of USA).
igor, I am not going to dignify your racist question with an answer. You can find the answer to your own question by reading all my earlier posts, where I reveal in one of them what you want to know.
I'm going to teach you a lesson, igor. I'm going to instruct you how to be a human being. First, know that you are not welcome on my site. Your anti-Semitic, racist, hate-filled taunts are not up to the civilized tone of this blog. If you persist in commenting on my blog, from now on, I am going to trash every racist, uncivilized comment you make. For you to get through and remain published, your questions and remarks will have to be polite, respecful, and civilized.
Have a good life.
Hi guys,
Ive been reading todays posts/debate with real interest along with a couple of other previous dialogues. I wont pretend to know all of the ins and out of the current political situation so I wont try to trade blows with intellectual heavyweights such as youselves (meant sincerely not sarcastically by the way).
I do have a couple of offerings however from a more philosophical view which relate back to a post a few weeks back on Wayne Dyer et al and Yin/Yang balance.
The concept of balance is one that I struggle with as I sometimes wonder if living in balance is actually fence sitting. Bush is absolutely not a fence sitter rightly or wrongly depending upon your perspective. My conviction is however that whatever receives focus and attention expands. Whether from a purely abstract point or in reality, its almost like this is a self-evident truth. When we focus on anger, the anger is re-inforced. When we focus on differences, those differences are accentuated. When we focus on peace, we get more of it. When we pay attention to a naughty child, they play up even more.
Now Im not saying that we can ignore all of the bad in the world - far from it. However, there is something to be said (for want of a better phrase) for bringing light to a situation where there is dark. I believe that you can be strong and caring and peaceful at the same time. However when we accept the notion that all terrorists just need to be annihilated with the equal force that they bring to their own jihad, we are actually re-inforcing the notion that to quell something you need to fight fire with fire. Its the whole "and eye for an eye and the world goes blind" syndrome.
I wonder if peaceful means can be reached through time, persistence, the willingness to move to another level of consciousness and accepting our "opponents" as branches on the same tree of life as we all are. By hurting, we expand the hurt.
Now what the practical implications of this philosophy in this situation are I dont know - ill be honest. It just feels like until people change their minds about "who" they are dealing with then the viscious cycle of violence will perpetuate itself.
Hope this has been interesting. Would welcome and comments or feedback. All the best
Sean
Sean, you are a very thoughtful person and I really appreciate you taking the time to read at least two of my posts, including this one and the one on Wayne Dyer. You are bright, and a good person.
However, I believe we have tried your approach for years. We offered the Palestinians everything they wanted, and they still kept bombing innocent Israeli women and children. This is the problem. Not all people in the world are as nice and reasonable as you are.
I don't believe that God made the world so simple that you can just "focus on the good" and it will expand. Otherwise, I'd be a millionaire right now, and have Anna Kournikova as my girlfriend. What about the Tibetans? The most peaceful, tranquil people in the world. What did they get for it? Subjugation. They focused on the good and got squashed.
I don't believe you can focus on the good in Hitler and turn him into Mother Teresa, or go buddy-buddy with Saddam Hussein and get him going to Cub Scout meetings (except maybe to find a boy to torture).
God designed the world, I believe, to be an enigma. It is not enough to be good and have good intentions, and spread a message of peace. You have also to fight. You must defeat evil.
I get what you're saying in this sense. Vendettas only lead to vendettas. They are a never-ending cycle of violence. What Israel, and the United States are doing, though, is not a vendetta. It is not an eye-for-an-eye. It is not revenge, even though it may feel good sometimes. It is defense. It is a struggle to survive. If the terrorists would stop terrorizing, there would be no more war.
The terrorists, on the other hand, are not fighting for survival. They are fighting to destroy. They want to dominate the world with their caliphate. They want to kill. They want to annihilate the state of Israel, and bring down the United States.
You cannot focus on the good in people that have no good in them. You cannot focus on the good in people that can put bombs in the laps of pregnant women. They must be destroyed. They are not human.
Thank you Sean, though, for your heartfelt opinion. You do represent the left on this issue very well. I so very much disagree with you, but, again, I know you are bright, caring, and desiring good for the world. God bless you for this. Feel free to comment anytime.
Post a Comment