Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.
Post a reply

Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Wed 23 Aug 2006, 23:11:29

Here is the sort of thing, perhaps, you were suggesting I look at:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH24Ak03.html

I don't just read littlegreenfootballs.com and National Review online by any means. I desire to be informed just as much as you do.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')nly the Special Forces, whose death-squad activities in the capital have lately been in the news, have any formal relationship with the elected government; and they have more enduring ties to the US military that created them and the Shi'ite militias who staffed them.

Administratively, the Iraqi government has no existence outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone - and little presence within it.


with 85% of the country's revenues deriving from oil, all you really need to know is that oil-rich Iraq is also suffering from an "acute fuel shortage" (including soaring prices, all-night lines at fueling stations, and a deal to get help from neighboring Syria, which itself has minimal refining capacity). The almost helpless Iraqi government has had little choice but to accept the dictates of American advisers and of the International Monetary Fund about exactly how and what energy resources will be used. Paying off Saddam Hussein-era debt, reparations to Kuwait from the Gulf War of 1990, and the needs of the US-controlled national army have had first claim.


The "Iraqi army" is a misnomer. The government's military consists of Iraqi units integrated into the US-commanded occupation army.


This is an honest article, as far as I can tell. So here comes the hard hitting part:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')errorism involves attacking civilians to force them to abandon their support for your enemy, or to drive them away from a coveted territory.

The original terrorists in Iraq were the military and civilian officials of the US administration of President George W Bush - starting with their "shock and awe" bombing campaign that destroyed Iraq's infrastructure to "undermine civilian morale". The US form of terrorism continued with the wholesale destruction of most of Fallujah and parts of other Sunni cities, designed to pacify the "hotbeds" of the insurgency, while teaching the residents of those areas that if they "harbor the insurgents", they will surely "suffer the consequences".

At the individual level, this program of terror was continued through the invasions of, and demolishing of, homes (or, in some cases, parts of neighborhoods) where insurgents were believed to be hidden among a larger civilian population, thus spreading the "lesson" about "harboring terrorists" to everyone in the Sunni sections of the country.


I wouldn't go so far as to say that Americans were the first to use terror, but more on that later. Then it is discusses how Sunni terrorists were also using terror with their car bomb attacks against Shi'ite civilians and video beheadings for similar reasons of tactics.

Now we see that the US and World Bank control the oil revenue. Interestly enough, the Kuwaiti War Reparations are being repaid now. Anyway, some of this is puzzling and unclear to me: The US is supposedly forming and supporting the Shi'ite deathsquads. Then I hear elsewhere General Abizaid talking about how Iranians are supporting them. Then I see that we have a number of Marines being held at Camp Pendleton in San Diego for allegedly murdering Iraqi civilians and they are to be put on trial soon. The US is playing the terror card too though, as it seems to be the method of warfare now. It was used in WWII and everybody uses it now: Islamicist Shia use it, secular Sunnis use it, not-so-secular Sunnis use it, Americans use it, Palestinians use it, Israelis use it, and so on. You may recall me questioning the War in Iraq a long time ago because Saddam's regime was secular and the enemy would have to be called something that emphasises that this is a Religious War. The West's goal is to restore the stability of the nation-state model for the modern world (a phrase that incences miki) so that we can continue business as usual, is how I see it. There is a book by French Middle Eastern scholar Gilles Kepel, Jihad, The Trail of Political Islam which detailed the modern Islamicist Movement as it emerged from the old Nationalist Movement in the former colonies across the Islamic world. It's a movement that goes back into the 70s. It was pretty ugly in Algeria. Political Islam has been dealt with in most of those countries except for Iran, where it succeeded. It managed to get control of Afganistan, but has lost it's foothold there. This war will have to be won by one side or the other, eventually. Islamicists lost already in most of the Islamic world. I still don't see how taking the war to Iraq was part of achieving Western victory. Maybe it only makes sense as a prelude to dealing with the true Islamic Revolutionary force in the world today: Iran. The "modern world" as I called it, as a convenient term, comes from the outcome of WWII. We all know here that it has a serious problem: Peak Oil. But I definately don't think that dreams of a Caliphate and Sharia Law are a solution to this problem. There, I've laid it out as well as I can. You may well find fault with it, but I have put it out for discussion. I have more thoughts on aspectsof this, maybe I can add them if this brings a worthwhile discussion.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby threadbear » Wed 23 Aug 2006, 23:30:45

PMS, I'll answer at length tomorrow or the next day. For now, though, you might find this of interest. This goes way beyond just oil and Sharia law.

Naomi Klein--Harper's mag--2004

One month later, Bremer unveiled the centerpiece of his reforms. Before the invasion, Iraq’s non-oil-related economy had been dominated by 200 state-owned companies, which produced everything from cement to paper to washing machines. In June, Bremer flew to an economic summit in Jordan and announced that these firms would be privatized immediately. “Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,” he said, “is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.” It would be the largest state liquidation sale since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

http://www.harpers.org/BaghdadYearZero.html
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby rogerhb » Wed 23 Aug 2006, 23:53:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,” he said, “is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.”


There's a laugh, he should have said

"Asset stripping is essential for Iraq's economic recovery."

Unfortunately Americans, Iraq and truth don't mix well.
"Complex problems have simple, easy to understand, wrong answers." - Henry Louis Mencken
User avatar
rogerhb
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4727
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Smalltown New Zealand
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby rwwff » Thu 24 Aug 2006, 00:12:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('rogerhb', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('threadbear', '')Getting inefficient state enterprises into private hands,” he said, “is essential for Iraq’s economic recovery.”


There's a laugh, he should have said
"Asset stripping is essential for Iraq's economic recovery."
Unfortunately Americans, Iraq and truth don't mix well.


It is funny though....

Friend of Bill ? Go to jail to protect the Slut in Chief's wife from embarrassment.

Friend of GW? Collect large checks, and get inside options on highly underpriced plant and equipment.
abundance fleeting
men falling like hungry leaves
decay masters all
User avatar
rwwff
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2601
Joined: Fri 28 Apr 2006, 03:00:00
Location: East Texas
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Fri 25 Aug 2006, 15:21:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I')t was pretty ugly in Algeria. Political Islam has been dealt with in most of those countries except for Iran, where it succeeded. It managed to get control of Afganistan, but has lost it's foothold there. This war will have to be won by one side or the other, eventually. Islamicists lost already in most of the Islamic world. I still don't see how taking the war to Iraq was part of achieving Western victory. Maybe it only makes sense as a prelude to dealing with the true Islamic Revolutionary force in the world today: Iran. The "modern world" as I called it, as a convenient term, comes from the outcome of WWII. We all know here that it has a serious problem: Peak Oil. But I definately don't think that dreams of a Caliphate and Sharia Law are a solution to this problem. There, I've laid it out as well as I can. You may well find fault with it, but I have put it out for discussion. I have more thoughts on aspectsof this, maybe I can add them if this brings a worthwhile discussion.


PMS,

Your ideas make some sense, but you completely left out a key element in all this: the effect of US foreign policies in the ME. I firmly believe that the radical leaders with the "caliphate" dream are a minority, and the only reason why they have been able to recruit so many followers and gain so much power is because millions of Arabs have been victims of US-sponsored terrorism and US forceful interventionist policies in the ME.

If your explanation of the current events don't consider that, then you're missing the deep roots of the problem. You can't ignore the fact that Israel has been invading Arab lands and slaughtering innocent Arab civilians for decades thanks to America funding and support. It is because of American support that Israel has been unaccountable for all its crimes and its violations of over 60 UN resolutions in favor of Arab rights.

Polls all over the ME and among Arab communities in the world show that people can sympathize with the terrorist motives precisely because of American foreign policies in the ME. If most Arabs feel that way, then you can't just leave that out of the equation.

Think about Irak and Lebanon only: the hate against the US has increased dramatically after the events of the last years. Moreover, you cannot dismiss the fact that Bin Laden himself repeatedly said that his actions were motivated by the US interventions in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Palestine.
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Fri 25 Aug 2006, 18:07:01

Do you think that if Israel were to return to the borders set up in 1948 that the Muslims around the world would cease the jihad? I do not, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby smiley » Fri 25 Aug 2006, 19:32:27

I think that Miki is right to a point. Jihad and violent fundamentalism is an expression of anger and frustration. It is not the cause of the anger and frustration.

However IMO Miki is wrong on the role of Israel. Israel's behavior can be blamed to a point but overall I think its role is more important as a legitimizer. Israel makes it 'right' to kill.

Look at the people from 911. They never had been in Israel, have not been directly affected by Israels actions yet they see the situation in Israel as an excuse to fly a jet into a building.

I guess the process runs like this

Personal frustration is the starting point.
Violent Islam is the accelerant.
Israel Irak Iran etc, are the legitimizers.

I think that if you want to understand terror you have to understand why such a large part of the Muslim world is so terribly frustrated.

And you cannot blame that all on the US and Israel. The M-E governments have done an equally fine job in breeding inequality and frustration among their citizens.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby holmes » Fri 25 Aug 2006, 20:03:32

Im with you Penult. Got ur back brother!
"To crush the Cornucopians, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
holmes
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2382
Joined: Tue 12 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 03:08:47

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'I') think that Miki is right to a point. Jihad and violent fundamentalism is an expression of anger and frustration. It is not the cause of the anger and frustration.

However IMO Miki is wrong on the role of Israel. Israel's behavior can be blamed to a point but overall I think its role is more important as a legitimizer. Israel makes it 'right' to kill.

Look at the people from 911. They never had been in Israel, have not been directly affected by Israels actions yet they see the situation in Israel as an excuse to fly a jet into a building.

I guess the process runs like this

Personal frustration is the starting point.
Violent Islam is the accelerant.
Israel Irak Iran etc, are the legitimizers.

I think that if you want to understand terror you have to understand why such a large part of the Muslim world is so terribly frustrated.

And you cannot blame that all on the US and Israel. The M-E governments have done an equally fine job in breeding inequality and frustration among their citizens.
I think you have shown in your posts in the past and with this one that you seek to be unbiased for either side. This conflict is very big and there is no end to the reading you can do on the internet to be informed and try to reach a sound judgement. But to me, it remains very hard to do. All the articles I read generally have clues showing whose side the author is on. And bias shows subjectivity. Subjectivity leads to errors at a very fundamental level, errors of fact even. Doubt and suspicion creep into the picture. I am not at all convinced of the veracity of the Asia Times article regarding the supposed connection between the US Army and the Shi'ite death squads, the ones drilling holes into Sunni victims with power tools. I read a AP story today telling of Shi'te death squad leaders killed by joint US/Iraqi Army operations in recent days. This is war and there is the famous "fog of war". These conflicting stories tell me in no uncertain terms to be wary of what to give credence to. But there isn't much else one can do but read opinions and stories from all sides anyway. I wonder if miki and threadbear do that? Do you two ladies read the reporting of journalists and op ed writers of the pro American or pro Israeli point of view? Ever read Victor Davis Hanson? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mz ... Y4ZThjNTM=
? Ever read debka.com? or any pro-American material at all? Or would you regard reading such material worse than useless? Threadbear, your posted Harpers article was a good one, and informative, but it only confirmed the kinds of things Hanson was saying: it's a bit premature to think of selling Colgate toothpaste and opening 7-11s and WalMarts.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 08:09:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'D')o you think that if Israel were to return to the borders set up in 1948 that the Muslims around the world would cease the jihad? I do not, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on that.


PMS: apparently you have not understood anything of what I said. I'd like you to please address each of the points I will explain now.

I think that:

1-It is not necessary for Israel to go back to the 1948 borders. However, they MUST stop the apartheid laws that they have against Palestinians; they must abide by UN resolutions in favor of Palestinians; they must stop stealing Palestinian territories, violating the borders set by the UN partitioning; they must stop their war crimes against the Palestinian people; they must be held accountable for all their war crimes and violations of UN resolutions the way Irak and Iran are; they must stop invading/occupying Arab lands in spite all UN decisions; they must give back all the lands they stole as demanded by UN resolutions; and they MUST let all the Palestinian refugees of the world go back to the West Bank, as demanded by the condition that was imposed on Israel in order for it to be accepted to the UN.

In other words, a two-state solution is possible, but the only legitimate and efficient way to achieve it is to give both parts a fair deal. So far Israel has refused to do that. Thus, I think its perfectly justified for resistance guerrillas to exist, especially because there is no local or world institution that is holding Israel accountable for its crimes and bringing justice to the Palestinian nation.

2-Jihadists will always exist, just like extremists of other religions will always exist. We all know that there are many Christian and Jew fanatics that believe that Israel has the right to a "promised land" that goes beyond the current established borders for the state of Israel. These people are not engaging in overt terrorism, but they do engage in more "subtle" forms of terrorism. Thus, Jihadists exist, but so do their Western equivalents.

The covert forms of American/Israeli terrorism include:

A-War crimes against the Palestinian people in the name of "fighting terrorism", something that is achieved by labeling resistance guerrillas as "terrorists". In the name of "fighting terrorism", Israel reserves the right to slaughter Palestinian civilians, fire at people engaging in peaceful demonstrations, confiscating civilian bank accounts, sending illegal settlers to the West Bank, demolishing civilian houses, kidnapping members of a legitimally elected government, kidnapping people without any charges and maintaining them in prisons for decades without any trials, torturing people in jail, allocating none or extremely minimal basic public services (eg, water, electricity) to the Palestinian people, forcing Palestinians to live in an Apartheid-like state,...

B-Spreading propaganda targeted at brainwashing the American and Israeli public in order to scare them and gain their approval for engaging in state-sponsored terrorism against Arab civilians (eg, Afghanistan, Irak, Lebanon). For example, everyone knows that Bush manipulated American emotional responses to 9/11 in order to invade Iran to steal oil. Did you hear when he recently admitted that 9/11 had nothing to do with Irak? That's not what he said 3 years ago, is it?

Other example: Israel and the US have commited tons of war crimes in their recent atack against Lebanon. With the excuse of the "war on terror" and the fear they provoked in both Americans and Israelis, they slaughtered lots of civilians (90% of those killed) and destroyed over 3 billion dollars of civilian infrastructure. And all because two soldiers were kidnapped? Does anyone really buy that excuse? Even the Israelis themselves don't buy it. Why do you think they changed their aims for the war so many times? Were they atacking Lebanon and killing civilians before even knowing what their goal was? If that is not terrorism, what is?

The US blocked the world's and the UN intents to facilitate an immediate cease fire and to allow humanitarian aid to enter Lebanon, and to allow Lebanese civilians to be evacuated from the atacked areas. If that is not terrorism, what is?

Israel even admitted that one of their goals was to debilitate Lebanon (take it 20 years back in time) and to make the Lebanese population turn against Hisballah. If that is not terrorism, what is?They slaughtered lots of people and destroyed all Lebanon, and they justified it by saying "it was a Hisballah-related target"---something that no independent study ever corroborated or will corroborate. And we need to take their word for it. And we need to accept that are completely unaccountable for anything because the US will veto every single intent to hold them accountable. If that is not terrorism, what is?

In other words, the US and Israel reserve the right to label whoever they want as terrorists and use that as a justification to engage in state-sponsored terrorism. If we you look at any definition of terrorism, you'll see that the US and Israeli "methods" of achieving their political aims fit all and every definition. If you guys can label others as terrorists., based on the methods used, then you guys should recognize that you've used terrorist methods yourselves--and thus you're terrorists too.

You cannot slaughter millions of people in the name of your "war on terror", which is an excuse for imperialism, and expect Arabs to understand that as legitimate. It is terrorism by all definitions.

Moreover, the US and Israel reserve the right to hold accountable of war crimes some oil-producing countries (eg, Irak, Iran) while they keep their nuclear weapons and engage in war crimes themselves, and no one can hold them accountable of anything. That is unacceptable.

3-Jihad is a broad concept. Most Muslims do not believe that Jihad should be applied today as a justification to fight the infidels or establish a world Muslim caliphate.

That said, there is definitely a minority of extremist Muslim leaders who believe Jihad is about establishing that caliphate or fighting the infidels. However,

A-Those people would lose most of their followers if the US and Israel were not engaging in state-sponsored terrorism.

B-Even those leaders have repeatedly said that one of the fundamental reasons why they're pursuing Jihad is because of US/Israeli policies against Muslims.

In other words, most jihadists are not fighting the infidels just because they're infidels; they're fighting them because those non-Muslims have atacked Muslim nations. The Koran itself specifies that jihad is to be targeted at those who atack Muslim nations.
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 08:38:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('smiley', 'H')owever IMO Miki is wrong on the role of Israel. Israel's behavior can be blamed to a point but overall I think its role is more important as a legitimizer. Israel makes it 'right' to kill.


I did not understand what you meant here. If you meant that Israel gives terrorists a legitimate reason to atack, then you're saying exactly what I said.

Again, their methods are wrong, but their agenda is partially legitimate (for the real terrorists, eg Al Qaeda) and fully legitimate for the resistance guerrillas (eg, Hamas and Hisballah).

Obvioulsly, I do not consider establishing a Muslim caliphate a legitimate aim; ditto for killing the infidels just because they're infidels. I oppose imperialism and fanatism wherever it comes from.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'L')ook at the people from 911. They never had been in Israel, have not been directly affected by Israels actions yet they see the situation in Israel as an excuse to fly a jet into a building.


Muslim culture is not like Western culture. Most Muslims believe that they are one nation. The radical Islamists definitely believe so, because the Koran clearly says so. Thus, if Palestinians are atacked, that's considered a direct atack on Muslims and Islam.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')ersonal frustration is the starting point.
Violent Islam is the accelerant.
Israel Irak Iran etc, are the legitimizers.


I very much agree with what you said here, except for one thing: I don't think Islam is violent per se. If that was the case, most Muslims would condone violence, and they don't. I think a minority of extremists interpret Islam in that way, and the only reason why they have followers from people who would normally oppose terrorism is that many of those people have been the victims of American/Israeli terrorism. Thus, they consider it legitimate to atack in kind, and they're blinded by their own pain and trauma.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd you cannot blame that all on the US and Israel. The M-E governments have done an equally fine job in breeding inequality and frustration among their citizens.


True, but that frustration would not be targeted at the US/Israel if they had not atacked Muslim nations. Thus, I think this has little to do with Jihad. Muslim frustration with the US/Israel is due only to Israeli/American actions.

Moreover, if their frustration against their own governments was so great, they'd organize themselves to fight against their own governments and it wouldn't be that hard to take those governments out of power. They are not yet enraged enough with their governments to do that. On the other hand, they are more than enraged with the US and Israel because they've been the victims of their state-sponsored terrorism.
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 09:37:24

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', ' ')Do you two ladies read the reporting of journalists and op ed writers of the pro American or pro Israeli point of view? Ever read Victor Davis Hanson? http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=Mz ... Y4ZThjNTM=
? Ever read debka.com? or any pro-American material at all?


I've personally read quite a few of those, and I've yet to see any convincing evidence against my current views.

As for the article you asked us to read, I'd like you to address each of these points please:

1-The article suggests Bush is in Irak to bring democracy. Do you honestly think that's the case? Why didn't he invade Cuba or N.Korea yet? Why does he only bring "justice" to the people that live in oil-rich countries?

Moreover, who told Bush that the Irakis want "democracy" the Western way? Did he ever bother to ask them? Wouldn't that be the democratic thing to do, particularly 3 years after Saddam is long gone? And who told the author of this article that his beloved "liberal values", the ones that he wants to export to the ME, are the preferred choice of Middle Wasterns? Why can't they have a choice? Isn't democracy one of those "liberal values"?

And if liberal values are so important, how about they start imposing them of their allies first? Israel for example. Why isn't the US imposing a real democracy on Israel? Why aren't Americans informed of all the apartheid-like laws that Palestinians are submitted to in Israel? Why is it "politically incorrect" to talk against Israel in the American media?

2-The article affirms that, if most Irakis want the US out of their country, that is because they need to be punished or at least "scared" enough to make them change their support towards the Jihadists. That sounds like state sponsored terrorism to me. That sounds like the opposite of democracy to me. Why don't they ask Irakis what they want and then decide accordingly? Are these people working under the assumption that Irakis are all mentally disabled and thus need the US to decide what "is good for them"?

3-The article assumes that the Iraki support for the jihadists is due to lack of judgement, ignorance, or mental disability. Has it ever ocurred to this guy that they may not be too happy to have the US occupying their territory for 3 years, stealing their oil, and bringing all the terrorists to their land to fight US forces, and in the process slaughtering all Irakis and destroying their country? Did he bother to ask the Irakis why they support the jihadists? Or is he just reading their minds?

4-The author uses derogatory terms when referring to Muslims and Islam (eg, "the pathologies of the ME"; "the creepy rhetoric of the imams and mullahs", "the puerility of the Muslim Street"). Whatever positive things about Muslims he might mention, these "ocassional" derogatory references speak a lot about his real opinions of Muslim society. All ideological bias aside, I think that speaks very badly of his approach to any topic.

5-This author offers us the perfect example of how Americans fail to see the obvious: the root cause of terrorism is their own foreign policies in the ME. Here I'm quoting him and explaining:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'h')e is attempting to convince the same American public and the Western world at large to spend their blood and treasure to help Muslim Afghans, Iraqis, and now Lebanese, who heretofore — whether out of shared anti-Americanism or psychological satisfaction in seeing the overdog take a hit — have not been much eager to separate themselves from the rhetoric of radical Islam.


Now, honestly, do you think Lebanese have increased their support of Hisballah from 40% to 80% just out of Anti-Americanism or the satisfaction of seeing the overdog take a hit? Or do you think maybe, just maybe, this increased support was the result of Israeli/American state sponsored terrorism against the Lebanese civilians? Is it just a coincidence that the increased support happened right after the war?

And if this guy and whoever thinks like him have failed so horribly in understanding the real reasons why Lebanese now support Hisballah, what makes you think they haven't failed in their explanations for Irak and Palestine as well?
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 11:39:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')PMS: apparently you have not understood anything of what I said.
Of course I have. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')I'd like you to please address each of the points I will explain now.
Well, I'm sorry miki, but it seems you haven't understood what I said: the attempt to be objective is difficult but it should be made when reading the news. Now let me make another point: if you would make shorter posts, restrain your passion a bit and not try to overwhelm, i.e. make it short and sweet, then maybe we could discuss these things a little more calmly. As it is, I'm back here at peakoil.com, but I have determined that it isn't a good idea to be too involved and so will only budget a little time in a given day to posting. So pick some single thing you would like me to tell you what I think about, and I'll get back to you latter.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 11:57:08

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'A')s it is, I'm back here at peakoil.com, but I have determined that it isn't a good idea to be too involved and so will only budget a little time in a given day to posting. So pick some single thing you would like me to tell you what I think about, and I'll get back to you latter.


OK. About IraK

1-Why doesn't the US ask Irakis what they want instead of deciding for them?

2-If the goal is to spread "luberal values" and democracy like the article you recommended argues, why not stary with Israel, which is far from a real democracy?
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 12:54:50

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')1-Why doesn't the US ask Irakis what they want instead of deciding for them?

2-If the goal is to spread "luberal values" and democracy like the article you recommended argues, why not stary with Israel, which is far from a real democracy?
I can only offer my own opinions, of course. I am not a spokesman for the US Government. I think that if the US is going to invade a country like Iraq to attempt to carry out it's stated resolution from the Clinton Era for "regime change", they should do it fully and wholeheartedly before they embark on any democritizing and westernizing schemes. There is a tendency, I think to look back at what happened after WWII with Germany and Japan becoming stable democracies and to assume that it will work again since it worked before. There is a forgetfulness of how thoroughly Germany and Japan were first defeated before that could happen. As for Israel, didn't they pull out of Lebanon because of Israeli protest and distaste for long term, open-ended, low intensity conflicts. Don't they get to go to the polls and elect? It looks to me like Israelis are hoping to elect nice liberal politicians and wish and hope for their third world enemies to forget about them.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby Miki » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 13:19:04

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', 'I') think that if the US is going to invade a country like Iraq to attempt to carry out it's stated resolution from the Clinton Era for "regime change", they should do it fully and wholeheartedly before they embark on any democritizing and westernizing schemes.


So if most of the Irakis want the US to leave, the US needs to stay in order to give democracy to the Iraki people? Don't you think that's a contradictory statement?

The US is Irak's parent and makes decisions for them because Irak is too disabled to decide what to do with their own country?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s for Israel, didn't they pull out of Lebanon because of Israeli protest and distaste for long term, open-ended, low intensity conflicts. Don't they get to go to the polls and elect? It looks to me like Israelis are hoping to elect nice liberal politicians and wish and hope for their third world enemies to forget about them.


And how about their apartheid-like society? Is that a model for democracy? Or is it a democracy that is exclusive to the Israeli Jews?

And if Israelis want their enemies to forget about them, why don't they allow the Palestinian refugees to go back to the West Bank, offer equal rights to the Palestinian people, comply with UN resolutions, stop stealing Palestinian land (75% since the 1970s), and stop invading Arab states and stealing their lands?
User avatar
Miki
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 969
Joined: Fri 21 Jul 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby smiley » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 13:41:51

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miki', 'I') did not understand what you meant here. If you meant that Israel gives terrorists a legitimate reason to atack, then you're saying exactly what I said.


What is legitimate reason? Said Bahaji, who was partly responsible for 911, was German born, from a German mother and a Moroccan father. As far as I'm aware Israel has not occupied lands in Germany or Maroc.

The reason why he joined Al Qaida and became muslim and was because he was picked on at school because of his immigrant background. He felt discriminated, and he probably was right to feel so.

But when you ask these people why they killed 3000 civilians, they will tell you that it is because of the Zionist regime and not because of some preps in high-school.

These kind of people use Israel as an "excuse" to lash out personal frustration and that is different from a "reason".

That is the whole mechanism of terror. It basically is the same as what Hitler did. Most Germans did not hate the Jews before 1940, they were however very frustrated on a personal level with the low employment, their status in the world having lost WW1 etc.

What Hitler did and what Osama is doing today is to channel that frustration to focus it, and to give that frustration a face, being Israel and the US.

That process of anger projection blurs the underlying causes. In the case of the terrorists that came from Europe, the real problem is not Israel, but the fact that our society is is not as open and equal as we like to think.

I hope this makes it a bit clearer.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('miki', 'I') very much agree with what you said here, except for one thing: I don't think Islam is violent per se.


I also don't. I wrote violent, because I want to make the distinction between the Islam, which is peaceful and the kind of Islam the terrorist are practicing.
User avatar
smiley
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri 16 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby PenultimateManStanding » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 13:41:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')So if most of the Irakis want the US to leave, the US needs to stay in order to give democracy to the Iraki people? Don't you think that's a contradictory statement?
When the US conquered Germany, they didn't mess around, they de-Nazified the country. The US should de-Baathify Iraq, Syria, and take out the Mullahs in Iran or stay home. The problem seems to be that we want to have our cake and eat it too. The only way we could do all those things is for the country to be mobilized and determined. This half-measure stuff arises from hubris, IMO. We can do it because we are just so freaking great that we can do it on the fly, easy, piece-of-cake style. Bull. In order to do those things, it should be completely apparent that it is absolutely neccessary. If we did these things, then small non-national militias could easily be destroyed. For my money, it's do it right or get out.
As for the apartheid thing, the reasons are obvious. I don't think any discussion of this will be fruitful between you and me. I've seen your approach and argumentative tactics and do not elect to discuss it with you. Save it for somebody else.
User avatar
PenultimateManStanding
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11363
Joined: Sun 28 Nov 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Neither Here Nor There
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby threadbear » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 20:22:30

When I read anything, I try as much as possible to discount for the bias of the author, PMS.This is why I cite Asia Times. Their articles are from a wide spectrum of opinion, from experts all over the world.

I automatically assume that the American free press is (a)--freedom of the press for anyone who can afford one, and with mergers and aquisitions and concentration of ownership in very few hands, that leaves very few individuals to shape public opinion.

The pro-Israel bias in US is so unremitting, pervasive, and long standing, it seems it's written right into the genetic code of Americans. It's certainly woven into the veil of illusion, along with all sorts of other unexamined ideas, strange fixations and fanciful myths. To throw off the veil a person has to have the courage to let go.

At one time it was admirable to be staunchly pro-Israel, but to remain so without qualifiers is issuing a blank check, for one, and encouraging moral hazard, for another.

When one is reflecting on the term balance in journalism, you have to ask what that means. Do you think the SS crimes should have been balanced against what they thought the Jews as a race had in store for them? Should that have been fairly reported on, dissected, and given equal time along with those who suffered at their hands? I think not.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Threadbear: I Agree With You, To A Point

Unread postby threadbear » Sat 26 Aug 2006, 20:30:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('PenultimateManStanding', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Miki', '
')So if most of the Irakis want the US to leave, the US needs to stay in order to give democracy to the Iraki people? Don't you think that's a contradictory statement?
When the US conquered Germany, they didn't mess around, they de-Nazified the country. The US should de-Baathify Iraq, Syria, and take out the Mullahs in Iran or stay home. The problem seems to be that we want to have our cake and eat it too. The only way we could do all those things is for the country to be mobilized and determined. This half-measure stuff arises from hubris, IMO. We can do it because we are just so freaking great that we can do it on the fly, easy, piece-of-cake style. Bull. In order to do those things, it should be completely apparent that it is absolutely neccessary. If we did these things, then small non-national militias could easily be destroyed. For my money, it's do it right or get out.
As for the apartheid thing, the reasons are obvious. I don't think any discussion of this will be fruitful between you and me. I've seen your approach and argumentative tactics and do not elect to discuss it with you. Save it for somebody else.


Did you read one f'g thing I posted in my original post, PMS? Read the Naomi Klein link, please. It explains that corporations were itching to get in there and profit and the greatest problem created in Iraq was the privatizing and subsequent firing of millions of Iraqis from their jobs. The best thing they could have done was off Sadam, remove senior command and deputize the military, leaving most of them intact. Why de-Bathify Iraq. Completely utterly silly.
User avatar
threadbear
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7577
Joined: Sat 22 Jan 2005, 04:00:00
Top
Next
Post a reply

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests