Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

JMak · Jan 13, 2009

Lerxst said:
It's not a fetish. It's very real and it can be countered. I'm sorry you don't feel that way.

It is a fetish. And I don't deny that the concern with root causes is "real." Of course it's real. My problem is that the root causes fetish is dangerous as it leads us to avoid dealing with the real root cause...Islamic violence. Instead, this root causes business has caused us to blame the victims rather than the perps. In other words, this root causes analysis typically leads to some vague notion of American or western culpability. I call it a fetish because it seems to be driven by some anti-American, anti-western attitude.

Really? Okay, please cite what the terrorists say, maybe give examples of reasons that have disappeared and ones that have taken their place.

Colonialism, poverty, US troops in Saudi Arabia, etc.

No, not "typically." It's certainly a factor, but not the factor. Do you know how many Muslims there are on this planet? Do you know how many perpetrate the crimes you are speaking of?

You're quibbling on the margins. The core reason politicians and scholars have settled on to explain Islamic terrorism is the Israel/Palestinian problem. That problem, they argue, is the reason why Muslims commit acts of terrorism against the US, Europe, and elsewhere...a form of protest against the West's support for Israel.

But didn't you understand my point? I was arguing the falsity of that conclusion made by politicians and scholars by noting that Islamic terrorism occurs all over the world and in places where the Israeli/Palestinian problem is a not of any concern at all.

Moderate Islam in no way reflects much of what you are talking about.

Moderate Islam is a minority, outside the mainstream.

What you are describing is fundamental Islam, not moderate Islam. Islam, like Christianity, has evolved albeit at a slower pace. It's still evolving. There is a war within the culture with the fundamentalists struggling to keep control versus the moderates who are changing with the times. Your narrow description and broad application of the worst of Islam is very disingenuous.

Not at all. It's the realization that Islam promotes violence. It's from this core of Islam that Islamic extremism flows. Islam teaches that violence is an appropriate method to redress grievances.

Not even clever.

I don't care if you don't find it clever.

The fact is that terrorism is a manifestation of a disease, a symptom, not the disease itself.

And the west's problem is it's unwillingness or inability to confront even the possibility that islaimic terrorism is, you know, at all connected to...~gasp~...Islam. The focus on so-called "root causes" leads to finding socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel.

What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? If the problem is not connected to Islamic beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Well?

Truth Detector · Jan 13, 2009

Laila said:
Well done but 'winning the war' is impossible
How does a country plan to defeat a ideology?

No one is fighting an "ideology"; we are fighting terrorists who promote an agenda of murder, lies and distortions which only gullible Liberals apparently fall for.

But by all means, continue illustrating the Liberal view that the US is an evil empire and operating illegally in dealing with terrorists, depots and dictators and how the terrorists are the innocents in this fight.

Carry on. :rofl

Truth Detector · Jan 13, 2009

1069 said:
Everything we've done since all this began has strengthened our enemy, rather than weakening it.

I keep hearing this FALSE argument and have to wonder what evidence you can provide that suggests that terrorist organizations are now stronger than they were before we went into Afghanistan and Iraq?

Al Qaeda is on the run; they are living like animals in caves and have been cut off from their former sources of funds and communications networks. They are being hunted down by the Pakistani Government, the Iraqi Government, the Afghanistan Government and most Governments of the world.

Their source of funding has been significantly reduced and their methods of communication thanks to spying programs have been significantly impaired.

Only someone living in a fantasy world can think that these organizations have been somehow enhanced or that they are recruiting more than post 9-11. The ONLY thing Osama has to show for his despicable act of 9-11 is two former dictatorships now Democracies and him and his followers living in caves on the run and fearful that the moment the show their faces they end up at the end of a missile.

You and many Liberals like you have a warped notion about what success and victory is. We are definitely winning this fight without the help of whiney Liberals who think that retreating behind your walls and doors will somehow make you safe from thugs trying to murder you.

Carry on. :roll:

Truth Detector · Jan 13, 2009

Laila said:
We have failed the past 8 years, i would have called it quits after 2

Wrong again; global policy on the Middle East has been a failure for the last SIXTY years and the final result of that failure culminated in the events of 9-11.

Remember that old saying; if you keep doing what you have always done expecting different results, you just might be an idiot.

Carry on. :2wave:

Truth Detector · Jan 13, 2009

Lerxst said:
However, it is our very recent use of big stick/cowboy militaristic tactics in the Middle East (as well as our past addiction to influencing the governments of other nations to our way of thinking regardless of the costs to the people of those nations) that have hindered our ability to actually gain significant ground on the core issues behind the formation and growth of extremist terror cells.

But we cannot continue to walk around with this cowboy swagger and simply say "**** 'em, bring it on!" We have to act with discretion, we have to act with caution, and we have to make sure we get it right. We cannot afford to continue making monumental blunder in foreign policy at the tip of a bayonet.

Yet no one has taken the positions you PERCEIVE they have. Those are YOUR perceptions based on YOUR political perspective.

But all the innuendo and rhetoric aside, the feelings of many after 9-11 was exactly that; how dare you attack us and declare war.

Your politics and those of Democrats who supported the War in Iraq have been singular in their affect to promote the despicable acts you denounce; Osama and Saddam felt that they could use American Liberal politics and journalism to win the propaganda war.

What they didn't count on, and thought they would get another "Clinton", was a President who actually did what he said he would and carried it out even with the onslaught of Liberals and Journalists in their inane attempts to declare the Iraq War lost and attack this President as being the enemy instead of our REAL enemies.

Isn't it telling that their efforts at declaring the US the loser have been silenced and we no longer see the front pages blathered with the typical Liberal speculative BS and body counts to support their inane assertions that losing is good and winning is bad.

Please spare us your hyperbole when you attempt to describe the HISTORIC facts and how the Bush Presidency acted and reacted to Osama and Saddam; the facts do not support your rhetoric as usual. It is about as inane as suggesting Bush did not use diplomacy; only by suspending common sense and the facts can anyone make such idiotic arguments.

It is ironic that you can come up with the RIGHT solution using the WRONG logic.

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
It is ironic that you can come up with the RIGHT solution using the WRONG logic.

You put it better than I did. :lol:

Truth Detector · Jan 13, 2009

Lerxst said:
I have to disagree to a large extent with the "revenge" theory. I know it's popular among the crowd critical of Bush (count me among them), but I think it's off base. I believe the wider agenda among the Neo-Cons was to take advantage of the opportunity to actually invade Iraq, unseat Saddam, and seat a government friendly to a U.S. influence in the region. It fit their strategy for rebuilding America's defenses perfectly. They just didn't really plan it out at all. It was a rush to war to seize and opportunity and Bush & Co. thought that it would be a cakewalk. They simply disregarded the geopolitical environment of Iraq, and to a large extent the entire Middle Eastern region, and went for it.

While Bush probably wanted revenge, the invasion was more motivated by a group strategy, and I don't think revenge was on their minds. I think "sphere of influence in an oil rich region" was.

Once again these arguments fascinate me in the vacuum of the honest FACTS. In order to facilitate this argument one has to believe that Saddam was not in defiance of the agreements he signed for over a decade and if we had done NOTHING, he would have eventually complied.

It is equally specious to suggest that we had no right to enforce the UN resolutions as member nations of a 36 nation coalition; the simple fact that our age old enemies and nemesis would have to sign on is absurd on the extreme and requires ignorance of the language contained in UN resolutions where MEMBERS can enforce UN resolutions.

Once again it is ironic that you can reach the RIGHT conclusion with FALSE logic.

Truth Detector · Jan 13, 2009

Lerxst said:
I think the failure to connect was our idea that our Western flavor of democracy would work in the Mid East. Again, that whole disregard for the geopolitical environment thing.

What flavor of Democracy did we implement; it surely isn't modeled after ours as it is a parliamentary system. What flavor of Democracy should have been tried; Asian, or Indian? :rofl

What an absurd statement. There are several forms of Democracy one of which is the parliamentary system used in Iraq and our form of Federalism in the US. The notion that it is flavored by our Western mentality is another absurd statement in a vacuum of the FACTS.

I would love to see what OTHER form of Democracy you think works. After all, we see Democracy working everywhere it is tried and used and prosperity results when Capital markets are allowed to flourish legally and without too much Government intrusion.

The other side is to have a fundamentalist theocracy or dictatorship which allows little if any freedom and exists at the benevolence of a small cadre or singular leader and abuses human rights.

The notion that having a despicable tyrant like Saddam was better for the Iraqi people than what they currently had is absurd in the extreme.

Lerxst · Jan 13, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Again you are making it up as you go along. If you are not going to quote my points properly, I am not going to waste any time cottecting you.

I made nothing up, you've offered NOTHING but what I described. You are simply mincing words in order to be argumentative and conveniently avoid defending your post. But I get the gist of what you are saying...you simply have no intelligent response so you'll yet again refuse to actually explain your point.

Again you are making it up as you go along. If you are not going to quote my points properly, I am not going to waste any time cottecting you.

And you are in complete denial of your own words. I quoted you, I made nothing up, you said what you said. Run from it now that it's exposed. If I had put my junk on the table and got it smacked with a hammer I'd tuck and run too.

When did I say "strip"?

Oh looky, more mincing words by Reverend Hellhound! This is the best you have? Complete avoidance of the issue? If you remove a nations sovereignty in any way you have "stripped it, taken, removed it, done away with it, etc." You know what the word means, you said they would not be considered sovereign...which entails discarding their sovereignty. I pinned you, you know it. So rather than actually debate your "solution" you will hide behind this milktoast "when did I say strip" defense. I'll accept your surrender on this point.

Bait me all you want. Your subversive rudeness beckons to your building up of anger that you are known for.

Yeah, when was the last time I challenged you to a...oh wait, not up here.

You know damn well what I did in the Air Force, or are you going to pretend now you don't in order to play your little troll game. We can compare DD214's any time you like.

No, I know what you claimed you did in the Air Force.

:lol: like how? Give me an example. You can throw all the "intelligence" acronyms around to look cool all you want. All you are doing is avoiding an actual answer....

Are you serious? Like how? You want hypothetical scenarios? What is it about surgical overt operations or covert operations that you don't understand? Why do you need examples? I thought you were high speed low drag and all that, you know you hang out with "operators" and whatnot. This is yet more of your avoidance of actually talking about your solution. I've put my ideas on the table...you've said you'd simply send in more troops and invade more countries. Nothing more. You've yet to provide a single specific.

Are you suggesting ignorantly I might add that we can do MOUT operations in terrorist strongholds without any of the things you whine about above? Or do you think haji only hides in the hills. :doh:

You know what you propose would expose operators to far greater danger, right? Good to see saftey of these members amount little to you.

I know for a fact we can conduct MOUT operations without knocking out power grids and water treatment plants, we can do it without leveling entire city blocks or sections of neighborhoods. Do you know what the **** MOUT actually means? Apparently you read the acronym somewhere because your position here is absolutely lacking in credibility.

MOUT does not require widespread paths of destruction. MOUT is building to building, room to room, street to street warfare conducted primarily by dismounted troops in an urban environment. The very nature of MOUT is to avoid leveling a city, otherwise we wouldn't send in ground troops until after we had carpet bombed the place into rubble. You really need to just stop. Seriously. I've been there, you obviously have not.

more of a solution than you offered, but if you look real close and take you partisan blinders off for a second you can see that we are proposing similar things here....

No, you are suggesting a one dimensional approach. I'm not. In fact I'm apparently speaking at a macro level that you refuse to rise to.

Go ahead think about it.... Your little surgical small hammer solution, would require exactly what I propose. Soveregnty means jack when you send in troops to get terrorists like you stated.

No, you didn't propose anything in detail at all. You said "we invade." I described a multi-dimensional approach. You want to stay the course.

Or are you suggesting that we ask the likes of the Taliban permission before going into afghanistan oh and wait for france to give us the go ahead.

I think this is where we differ.

No, I said that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do...did I not? How do you just forget this stuff? I mean seriously, I actually typed out that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, yet here you are asking if I'm suggesting that we should have asked the Taliban for permission? What is wrong with your memory?

Why do you think I asked you to spell out precisely what nations you would have us invade and what the other stages of your solution would involve? Because I have already said that combat operations where necessary should be conducted. But I was clear that Iraq was an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that? You have yet to answer my question regarding who you think we should invade or on what scale. Why is that again? Do you not like specifics Mr. Reverend Hellhound? Do they bother you? You sure ask for a lot of them.

:lol: why you waste your time posting these tantrums is beyond me......

pages and pages of whining...jeesh, or is that "Command pressence" you are going for?

I think I used up my smiley quotent, You are so laughable. Just because I have no interest in a broad discussion on every little tangent you can think of is not my issue its yours. Pick something to talk about and lets shorten this up....

Useless banter.

Talk about arguing for arguings sake. I never disagreed with you regarding this, I simply pointed out that indeed they come from all walks of islamic life....

ad hom after ad hom....

I wouldn't venture into the woods by myself either if I were you, best to avoid.

What started radical Islam? what caused it? Why do they kill each other?

Please by all means educate me.

Given your inability to actually carry on any form of substantial debate in this thread, I'll go ahead and save my energy. I can recommend some books for you, sorry...they don't have a lot of pictures.

More useless crying and ad homs.

Again with the useless complaining.

Man you complain alot... :lol:

But see, if you leave all the personal crap out, and stop complaining, your posts become more managable... Why don't you give it a try.... Thanks!

And you still haven't posted a single bit of substance to this argument.

You're welcome.

First Thought · Jan 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Wrong again; global policy on the Middle East has been a failure for the last SIXTY years and the final result of that failure culminated in the events of 9-11.

Agreed.

Remember that old saying; if you keep doing what you have always done expecting different results, you just might be an idiot.

Eh... You supported McCain for president. Do you at all find that ironic, considering the quoted statement?

Lerxst · Jan 13, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Where?

Of course, DEBATE AVOIDANCE MANEUVER ENGAGE!

Useless ad hom banter and misrepresentation of my posts.

Yeah yeah yeah...skip goes the record.

Now there you go Lerxst.....

You said this before? Can you show me? It must of gotten lost in all your ad hom, complaining, and banter.... If you show me I will be happy to take a look. :lol:

Your laughable, it throughout my posts. It was "in summary" meaning a summation of points I have brought up throughout. If you don't get what this means then you don't need to be debating me.

And you know what. I agree with this.... I also though as you say, think we need to take the fight to the terrorists.

Really? Now you agree with me?

What yo propose is some goofy "either or" proposition, or combined, depending on what post it is.

Perhaps you can summarize...

I never proposed an "either or" proposition and you can't link to a single comment I have made that would back that up. You are lying. And I've already summarized. Apparently you can quote my posts but not actually read them.

I think we should do exactly what you say,

Really, because you've spent an inordinate amount of time saying I've offered up basically nothing. So what exactly about my proposal do you agree with?

I also think we need to go into some of these "Soverign nations" to root out the hard core terrorists, and not ask france for a permision slip....

Okay, you prefer unilateral military operations. Fine, now I ask you again...what nations and why? On what scale?

Useless banter. Unlike you I am not intereted in "everything including the kitchen sink" debate style...

But it is simple and if you are as well read as you claim, you would understand the underpinnings of the oil for food program, who benefited, and who was blamed for starving Iraqis.....

But if willful ignorace is your position, uhm ok,

No, you called it a mini-cold war. That was your description and you said you had given an explanation. I'm an avid student of the Cold War. I would like to see your explanation, that's all. I absolutely understand the oil for food scandal, I understand the failure of the U.N. sanctions, I understand western foreign policy, and I understand the starvation situation in Iraq previous to the U.S. invasion. So, how does this relate to some "mini-cold war" and how does it relate to Islamic terrorism? Do you think that the oil for food program was more to blame for anti-west sentiment than the actual invasion and occupation of Iraq? Since you refuse to link your explanation of this point you've made I'm forced to continually ask you to break it down. Don't just say "oh you know." No, I don't. Not as you are presenting it because it doesn't make any sense.

More complaining and clear misrepresentation of my point.

What is your endgame? Historical evidence that your endgame has worked before?

No, I didn't misrepresent your point. You're trying to hard here. I gave my opinion of your "solution" or lack thereof. I summarized your position as to what I believe best represents it. I have asked you for further detail but you can't seem to give it.

Regarding my "end game," I'm pretty sure in this case, since the topic is to counter the spread of radical Islamic militancy and safeguard our nation against terrorism, I would guess my end game would to counter the spread of radical Islamic terrorism and safeguard our nation against terrorism. That's just off the top of my head. Do you know what an "end game" is?

Instead of asking me what historical evidence there is of my "end game" working (since that question is simply absurd) you should ask me "what historical evidence is there that your methodology has worked before?" To which I would respond "where have you been for this entire debate?" We have not employed the types of strategies I am suggesting and that is one of the main issue here. What do you think I have been saying? When I say we need to change our foreign policy because historically it's been a complete failure in this area, it's because we haven't ever tried doing it this way in the past and what we are and have been doing hasn't and isn't working. Get it?

So are you suggesting more troops? :lol:

Hahahahaha...omfg....oh you did it, oh my god....nice one! Should I actually answer your question since you are so afraid to answer mine? Sure, I'll answer this one...in the specific case of Afghanistan, more troops, more money, more resources...yes. In that specific instance. But then again, I think you already knew that as I have consistently stated Afghanistan was an example of where we should have gone all out to begin with.

I find nothing wrong with this. I believe I have stated similar in the past... I guess you choose to see what you think I said instead of what I did say.

Good, however I have never seen you suggest this in any detail. I'm operating in the confines of this discussion, and as far as that goes you have never offered anything of the sort. Point it out please...in this thread, show me where you suggested what I did.

How would you go about giving say the population in Iraq an "alternate to the bad guys"? How does that differ than what we are doing, and how long should this take?

That's an easy answer and I have it. But this is a case of quid pro quo. You owe me some specific answers. It's pretty shallow of you to refuse to answer my questions, calling them a tangent just because I'm asking for details, and then ask me to oblige you. Drop your act and answer mine first, and I'll reciprocate.

Perfect.

Make up position I do not have, blame righty, and demonstrate an ignorance that this started long before iraq or even 911....

I didn't make a position and that you did not take, show me where I did. I asked if you understood the issue. I don't think you do. I do blame righty, the neo-con administration of GWB was responsible for Iraq. The new front, the one IN IRAQ, is one that did not exist previous to our invasion. Again, what is so hard for you to connect with here? How many Iraqi's were blowing themselves up or setting car bombs or throwing hand grenades at coalition forces or civilians in Iraq prior to our invasion. Hint...it's a trick question.

:lol: perhaps you should leave the drama out and stick to the facts and your position. It would benefit both of us.....

What? You don't like it when I turn your own words on you? When I point out what a very poor job your doing within this debate and articulate that you have absolutely no command over the subject at hand? Yeah, it's drama right? Puerile and ignorant....big words huh Reverend Hellhound?

Lerxst · Jan 13, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Yet no one has taken the positions you PERCEIVE they have. Those are YOUR perceptions based on YOUR political perspective.

How so? I have history on my side. Plenty of scholars who have detailed the arrogance of western foreign policy for decades. Your opinion is nothing more than your opinion.

But all the innuendo and rhetoric aside, the feelings of many after 9-11 was exactly that; how dare you attack us and declare war.

No innuendo at all. We have a long history of injecting our influence into other nations affairs with awful results. You can deny it all you want but it's documented and it's spread far and wide from Asia, to the Middle East, and south and central America. The rest of the world knows this, I'm not sure why you think it's innuendo and rhetoric. We are the greatest nation in the world in my opinion, but we could have been much better than we are and I know when we are ****ing up. I'm not ashamed to point it out.

Your politics and those of Democrats who supported the War in Iraq have been singular in their affect to promote the despicable acts you denounce; Osama and Saddam felt that they could use American Liberal politics and journalism to win the propaganda war.

Right, and the victim of the rape deserved it because she wore her skirt too short. You're taking a theory and trying to swing it as a fact. They have in no way been "singular in their effect" to promote terrorism. That is absolutely bogus partisan rhetoric. The only bit of truth in it is the fact that our enemy has sought to exploit political divides in our country. There is ten times more validity in saying the invasion of Iraq has caused the most dramatic increase in the number of instances of terrorism in the middle east in modern history. And it has. Again, history backs me up on this. As do a lot of dead Iraqis, foreign workers in Iraq, and coalition troops.

What they didn't count on, and thought they would get another "Clinton", was a President who actually did what he said he would and carried it out even with the onslaught of Liberals and Journalists in their inane attempts to declare the Iraq War lost and attack this President as being the enemy instead of our REAL enemies.

The war in Iraq was a loss the day it started. Not because our troops couldn't defeat our enemy but because it didn't need to happen. You are in a minority that clings to the validity of the invasion like a dog to a bone. The majority of Americans and the overwhelming majority of the world views the invasion of Iraq an absolutely unjust and even criminal act. Won or lost is irrelevant in the fact that we should have never invaded in the first place. We haven't lost militarily, but then again what we are doing is trying to fix something we broke. You clap your hands in joy and wave the flag like a good patriot, proclaim our military prowess for all to hear, and I'm sure you'll be impressive. The rest of us will look at you in disbelief, shaking our heads in the understanding that you don't get it, at all...and thanking our lucky stars that your kind are on your way out.

Isn't it telling that their efforts at declaring the US the loser have been silenced and we no longer see the front pages blathered with the typical Liberal speculative BS and body counts to support their inane assertions that losing is good and winning is bad.

I never saw these big stories stating the U.S. had lost in Iraq. This is just an example of your setting up a straw man and knocking it down, then telling everyone you see that you "won." What was being printed was that the war was a mistake, and it was. That we would be in Iraq for years, and we have. That we would spend billions and loss thousands of sons and daughters, and we have. Yeah TD, we sure won didn't we?

Please spare us your hyperbole when you attempt to describe the HISTORIC facts and how the Bush Presidency acted and reacted to Osama and Saddam; the facts do not support your rhetoric as usual.

They absolutely do support me. Is this one of those threads where you will parade around and claim to beat people over the head with "facts" but not ever produce any? I've seen this before. Please TD, show us again!

It is about as inane as suggesting Bush did not use diplomacy; only by suspending common sense and the facts can anyone make such idiotic arguments.

Oh yeah, Bush used diplomacy. Misrepresenting raw intelligence reports and twisting the truth into a pretzel in order to pretend he was justified in invading Iraq, that was diplomatic alright.

I know, I know...but the U.N. resolution! Yep, and it's also legal for an officer to use an elevated level of force to compel a criminal offender to surrender and be taken into custody...and that is never over done is it? Nobody ever yells "stop resisting" while the suspect is laying there getting kicked in the head. No, nothing like that ever plays out...it certainly didn't here either. I mean, the resolution...it was an official document and whether or not we actually needed to invade Iraq and blow it to hell, all that was important was that we could. Never mind that we couldn't substantiate any of our claims that he had WMD's and that he was supporting Al Qaeda operations...we had that resolution. It was legal I tells ya! :roll:

It is ironic that you can come up with the RIGHT solution using the WRONG logic.

Yet, you have not actually said anything other than "you liberals are responsible for terrorist attacks cause you undermine the war effort and your wrong Lerxst." Are those some more of your famous TD Facts?

Lerxst · Jan 14, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Once again these arguments fascinate me in the vacuum of the honest FACTS. In order to facilitate this argument one has to believe that Saddam was not in defiance of the agreements he signed for over a decade and if we had done NOTHING, he would have eventually complied.

What are honest FACTS? Aren't facts, by default, honest? You have a flair for the written word, I'll tell you that. Very smooth. Anyway, what you are hung up on is the issue that we had a U.N. resolution giving us authority to act. Which is true. However, we did not have to act in the way we did. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. The post invasion evidence, or lack thereof, supported those who proclaimed we did not need to invade. Bush got it wrong, and the rub here is that he was told not only by his own people, but by other international organizations, that he was wrong...before he went in.

It is equally specious to suggest that we had no right to enforce the UN resolutions as member nations of a 36 nation coalition; the simple fact that our age old enemies and nemesis would have to sign on is absurd on the extreme and requires ignorance of the language contained in UN resolutions where MEMBERS can enforce UN resolutions.

Just because we had the authority doesn't mean had to invade. I never said we had no right to enforce the resolution, I merely contend we did not need to invade the way we did. Saddam was no viable threat to the region. A failure of the U.N. to actually maintain oversight doesn't give us righteous position to do what we did. The U.S. under GWB was absolutely not in any position to invade Iraq for the simple fact we didn't have our collective **** together. We unleashed a monster there because we didn't have even a half assed excuse for a post invasion occupation plan. Never mind that we couldn't substantiate the need for invasion. Hence your complete reliance on that piece of paper for your reasoning.

Once again it is ironic that you can reach the RIGHT conclusion with FALSE logic.

And lucky for me you did your famous TD Facts routine but really didn't support your statement. You just threw the word in there because you believe it has magical powers or something.

Lerxst · Jan 14, 2009

Truth Detector said:
What flavor of Democracy did we implement; it surely isn't modeled after ours as it is a parliamentary system. What flavor of Democracy should have been tried; Asian, or Indian? :rofl

So you are trying to be humorous I see. You should stop while your not all that behind. The type of Democracy implemented by non-Muslim invaders that failed to take into account the very sharp religious, tribal, and political differences of Iraq. The idea that "infidels" could occupy a Muslim nation, completely dismantle the governmental body, create a huge power vacuum by dissolving the traditional mechanisms of law and order, and then endorse particular individuals for positions of power with little understanding the internal dynamics of the country. That kind. The kind that has caused the permanent Iraqi government such a difficult time in finding it's feet. The kind that unleashed a brutal insurgency and religious civil war costing thousands of innocent Iraqi's their lives.

What an absurd statement. There are several forms of Democracy one of which is the parliamentary system used in Iraq and our form of Federalism in the US. The notion that it is flavored by our Western mentality is another absurd statement in a vacuum of the FACTS.

And you are completely out of touch with the reality of this issue. If you think that we don't have a very pronounced influence in their democracy you are blind. And there you go with your use of the word FACTS again. They aren't helping you here, especially when you don't produce any. WE directed the establishment of the Iraqi government and we influenced it's evolution from the interim to the transitional to the permanent. We occupy the damn the country and function as a second arm of their military and police. Your hogwash here doesn't fly. If you wanna unleash all caps FACTS then by all means do it. But make sense.

I would love to see what OTHER form of Democracy you think works. After all, we see Democracy working everywhere it is tried and used and prosperity results when Capital markets are allowed to flourish legally and without too much Government intrusion.

And here we have it folks. I believe that you, Mr. Truth Detector, are one of those that feel that if we force our way of life, the capitalist Democracy we so love in the U.S., on any nation they will eventually adapt to it and all will be well. If a Muslim nation wants a democracy modeled off what they see in the west, they should be able to self determine that course. If they prefer to live in a theological oligarchy they should be allowed to do that. It's their nation.

So how has this experiment worked in Iraq up till now? Six years later. Have they fully embraced it? Would you say the capitalist markets are flourishing? How many times exactly have we tried this in Arab nations before? How many times has it succeeded?

The other side is to have a fundamentalist theocracy or dictatorship which allows little if any freedom and exists at the benevolence of a small cadre or singular leader and abuses human rights.

Absolutely false. You can have a moderate Islamic nation that embraces it's religious leanings.

The notion that having a despicable tyrant like Saddam was better for the Iraqi people than what they currently had is absurd in the extreme.

I never said Saddam was better. This is the part where you ride your pony for all it's worth.

In your three posts you have almost completely avoided the meat of the discussion which is the problem of Islamic extremism and the impact of western foreign policy. Your choice was to focus on trying to pretend that you have justified the invasion of Iraq. That is irrelevant because the Islamic militants don't see it the same way you do. Nobody cares if you think the invasion was justified, one the main factors in our current struggle against Islamic terrorism is the fact that most Muslims think we were wrong to invade Iraq.

Do you not get this simple premise. It's been spelled out not just by me, but by them. You have fun with this, maybe you and Reverend Hellhound can tell each other how right you are without actually discussing the issue.

Ethereal · Jan 14, 2009

Moderate Islam in no way reflects much of what you are talking about. What you are describing is fundamental Islam, not moderate Islam. Islam, like Christianity, has evolved albeit at a slower pace. It's still evolving. There is a war within the culture with the fundamentalists struggling to keep control versus the moderates who are changing with the times. Your narrow description and broad application of the worst of Islam is very disingenuous.

You are confusing the term "Islamic fundamentalism" with "Islamic extremism". Most "moderate" Muslims are fundamentalist in that they follow a fundamental interpretation of their religious text. The same could be said of many Southern Baptists. Although they are not the same as the minority of Christians who blow up abortion clinics I think it's safe to assume that when nobody's looking they indulge themselves in a smile or two at the thought of an abortion doctor with his guts hanging out just the same as the "moderate" Muslim who secretely smiles everytime a katyusha rocket blows an Israeli's head out of their ass.

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 14, 2009

Lerxst said:
I made nothing up, you've offered NOTHING but what I described. You are simply mincing words in order to be argumentative and conveniently avoid defending your post. But I get the gist of what you are saying...you simply have no intelligent response so you'll yet again refuse to actually explain your point.

and the mantrum begins....

And you are in complete denial of your own words. I quoted you, I made nothing up, you said what you said. Run from it now that it's exposed. If I had put my junk on the table and got it smacked with a hammer I'd tuck and run too.

More worthless ad homs. junk is a good word though, that is all you post, loud mouthed "junk", so far two paragraphs where you claim victory for posting contradictory nonsense and baiting trolling. you rawk!

~~Oh looky, more mincing words by Reverend Hellhound! This is the best you have? Complete avoidance of the issue?~~ If you remove a nations sovereignty in any way you have "stripped it, taken, removed it, done away with it, etc." You know what the word means, you said they would not be considered sovereign...which entails discarding their sovereignty. ~~I pinned you, you know it. So rather than actually debate your "solution" you will hide behind this milktoast "when did I say strip" defense. I'll accept your surrender on this point.~~

Now an intellectually wanting semantics post. You do know when you "scapel" your little hammer into other countries without thier permission you are breaking that county's sovereignty.

:lol: at your "e-command pressence"

You fail on so many levels.....

Yeah, when was the last time I challenged you to a...oh wait, not up here.

Why are you bringing up the basement? I am simply refering to your little mantrums up here. and if you are going to violate vegas, perhaps you should try to at least be honorable about it and not lie.

No, I know what you claimed you did in the Air Force.

Like I said, we can compare dd214's any time you want. keep trolling though.

Are you serious? Like how? You want hypothetical scenarios? What is it about surgical overt operations or covert operations that you don't understand? Why do you need examples? I thought you were high speed low drag and all that, you know you hang out with "operators" and whatnot. This is yet more of your avoidance of actually talking about your solution. I've put my ideas on the table...you've said you'd simply send in more troops and invade more countries. Nothing more. You've yet to provide a single specific.

yeah I am not going to comment here because I have what cops should have, it is called "self control". this is a vegas violation. Please show some self control :roll:

I know for a fact we can conduct MOUT operations without knocking out power grids and water treatment plants, we can do it without leveling entire city blocks or sections of neighborhoods. Do you know what the **** MOUT actually means? Apparently you read the acronym somewhere because your position here is absolutely lacking in credibility.

You are losing all self control kid, every paragraph of yours contains a little personal attack or two. is this how you "debate"? pathetic.

But I love how you think we should send in small man teams without softening up an area as an ONLY solution.

I think you are more worries about the terrorists and what france thinks of us than the safety of those who serve. shame on you.

MOUT does not require widespread paths of destruction. MOUT is building to building, room to room, street to street warfare conducted primarily by dismounted troops in an urban environment. The very nature of MOUT is to avoid leveling a city, otherwise we wouldn't send in ground troops until after we had carpet bombed the place into rubble. You really need to just stop. Seriously. I've been there, you obviously have not.

Again with the personal attacks, give it up kid, all I am doing is laughing at you. See I could come back and slam you left and right, But I wont. Why? because I have what is called self control....

And you fail as usual... "MOUT" is all military actions that are planned and conducted on a terrain complex where man-made construction affects the tactical options available to the commander.

perhaps you should be the one "looking it up".....

FAIL

No, you are suggesting a one dimensional approach. I'm not. In fact I'm apparently speaking at a macro level that you refuse to rise to.

FAIL. If you are going to lie, try not to make it so blatant.

No, you didn't propose anything in detail at all. You said "we invade." I described a multi-dimensional approach. You want to stay the course.

Fail again. lying gets us nowhere.

No, I said that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do...did I not? How do you just forget this stuff? I mean seriously, I actually typed out that invading Afghanistan was the right thing to do, yet here you are asking if I'm suggesting that we should have asked the Taliban for permission? What is wrong with your memory?

How did we invade Afghanistan without violating sovereignty? you talk out of both sides of your mouth. :lol:

Why do you think I asked you to spell out precisely what nations you would have us invade and what the other stages of your solution would involve? Because I have already said that combat operations where necessary should be conducted. But I was clear that Iraq was an example of what we should not be doing. Remember that? You have yet to answer my question regarding who you think we should invade or on what scale. Why is that again? Do you not like specifics Mr. Reverend Hellhound? Do they bother you? You sure ask for a lot of them.

simple, because it is a moronic question.... or maybe I should give you Obama's answer and say "Pakistan".... would that make you feel better? :lol:

~~I wouldn't venture into the woods by myself either if I were you, best to avoid.~~

***yawn***

Given your inability to actually carry on any form of substantial debate in this thread, I'll go ahead and save my energy. I can recommend some books for you, sorry...they don't have a lot of pictures.

do you have how to "e-thug and be cool on the internet"? :lol:

And you still haven't posted a single bit of substance to this argument.

You're welcome.

Just because you can't argue what I post, claiming that I have not posted a single bit of substance while posting pages of attakcs does not make it true.

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 14, 2009

Lerxst said:
Of course, DEBATE AVOIDANCE MANEUVER ENGAGE!

I ask for clarification and you post this dribble? you are the one avoiding not me...

~~Yeah yeah yeah...skip goes the record.~~

~~Your laughable, it throughout my posts. It was "in summary" meaning a summation of points I have brought up throughout. If you don't get what this means then you don't need to be debating me.~~

Really? Now you agree with me?

:lol: you call me one dimensional, but when I say that in some of your specifics I agree you think I am "now" agreeing with you? try again kid.

You post contradictory dribble and ad homs, somewhere in your diarrreah of posts there was bound to be something I agreed with. :lol:

I never proposed an "either or" proposition and you can't link to a single comment I have made that would back that up. You are lying. And I've already summarized. Apparently you can quote my posts but not actually read them.

How am I lying. I don't expect you to back this up, but hey, worth a try.

Really, because you've spent an inordinate amount of time saying I've offered up basically nothing. So what exactly about my proposal do you agree with?

Your "proposal"? laughable, alll you dis was regurgitate some talking points....

but lets see... we need to take the fight to them for one, engage in diplomatic relationships as another....

Hell, I'd go back and try to find what you posted, but you post so much vitriolic crap it makes it not worth my time. the immaturity of your massice posts and the little actual substance it carries is not worth it. perhaps if you show a little restraint and stop acting like a kid we can have a good debate.

Instead you want to lie, you want to attack my service, you want to bring up the basement, and you want to insult. I have been crossing out the useless parts of your posts and as you see what is 2 pages can usually be shortened to two paragraphs. What is your point. Why are you so angry at some dood on the internet? :lol:

Okay, you prefer unilateral military operations. Fine, now I ask you again...what nations and why? On what scale?

Wait, so when you say "take the fight to the enemy" you want a permission slip from france?

See here is your problem. I could ask you the same question to figure out where you think that fight is.... but I don't as it is a stupid question. As for "preference" you are once again lying about my position to give yourself something to argue against.....

It is a miserable failure.

No, you called it a mini-cold war. That was your description and you said you had given an explanation. I'm an avid student of the Cold War. I would like to see your explanation, that's all. I absolutely understand the oil for food scandal, I understand the failure of the U.N. sanctions, I understand western foreign policy, and I understand the starvation situation in Iraq previous to the U.S. invasion. So, how does this relate to some "mini-cold war" and how does it relate to Islamic terrorism? Do you think that the oil for food program was more to blame for anti-west sentiment than the actual invasion and occupation of Iraq? Since you refuse to link your explanation of this point you've made I'm forced to continually ask you to break it down. Don't just say "oh you know." No, I don't. Not as you are presenting it because it doesn't make any sense.

hmm. you know. if it were any other poster I would get into it. but naah. all you do is attack, bait and troll. so I will keep it short until you show me the rerspect you want to be treated with....

suffice to say on this topic, yes the way it was portrayed as to how the "US sanctions" which were "un sanctions" added to anti-US sentiments among many other reasons. the issue was the un refusing to lift them even as we took baghdad because of the hussein kickbacks. had people in the UN, france germany, etc not have been making money, they would not have been so opposed.

Regarding my "end game," I'm pretty sure in this case, since the topic is to counter the spread of radical Islamic militancy and safeguard our nation against terrorism, I would guess my end game would to counter the spread of radical Islamic terrorism and safeguard our nation against terrorism. That's just off the top of my head. Do you know what an "end game" is?

Thank you for that beauty pageant response. Mrs. America would be proud.... :lol:

duh..... so your answer is to repeat the question as the answer..... laughable....

Instead of asking me what historical evidence there is of my "end game" working (since that question is simply absurd) you should ask me "what historical evidence is there that your methodology has worked before?" To which I would respond "where have you been for this entire debate?" We have not employed the types of strategies I am suggesting and that is one of the main issue here. What do you think I have been saying? When I say we need to change our foreign policy because historically it's been a complete failure in this area, it's because we haven't ever tried doing it this way in the past and what we are and have been doing hasn't and isn't working. Get it?

So like I said long ago through many of your winbagged posts..... You don't have an actual "end game" you have nothing but, "this is wrong", you offer no actual solutions but talking points and ambiguous generalities.

Hahahahaha...omfg....oh you did it, oh my god....nice one! Should I actually answer your question since you are so afraid to answer mine? Sure, I'll answer this one...in the specific case of Afghanistan, more troops, more money, more resources...yes. In that specific instance. But then again, I think you already knew that as I have consistently stated Afghanistan was an example of where we should have gone all out to begin with.

Good for you. where else? what was even the question, i grew tired of you personal attacks, your lies about me, and your general ethugging.

Good, however I have never seen you suggest this in any detail. I'm operating in the confines of this discussion, and as far as that goes you have never offered anything of the sort. Point it out please...in this thread, show me where you suggested what I did.

That's an easy answer and I have it. But this is a case of quid pro quo. You owe me some specific answers. It's pretty shallow of you to refuse to answer my questions, calling them a tangent just because I'm asking for details, and then ask me to oblige you. Drop your act and answer mine first, and I'll reciprocate.

Please post up specific questions you would like for me to answer. I am not searching through pages of your e-thugging to find what you are talking about.... I will be happy to re-answer anything you ask. :roll:

I didn't make a position and that you did not take, show me where I did. I asked if you understood the issue. I don't think you do. I do blame righty, the neo-con administration of GWB was responsible for Iraq. The new front, the one IN IRAQ, is one that did not exist previous to our invasion. Again, what is so hard for you to connect with here? How many Iraqi's were blowing themselves up or setting car bombs or throwing hand grenades at coalition forces or civilians in Iraq prior to our invasion. Hint...it's a trick question.

***yawn*** and if Clinton had the balls to go into Iraq like he claimed he wanted to you would be singing his praises.....

your loaded question is ignorant to the reality there.

What? You don't like it when I turn your own words on you? When I point out what a very poor job your doing within this debate and articulate that you have absolutely no command over the subject at hand? Yeah, it's drama right? Puerile and ignorant....big words huh Reverend Hellhound?

***yawn***

please attempt to leave your puerile nonsense out of it. thanks

Lerxst · Jan 14, 2009

Ethereal said:
You are confusing the term "Islamic fundamentalism" with "Islamic extremism". Most "moderate" Muslims are fundamentalist in that they follow a fundamental interpretation of their religious text.

I think many moderate Muslims are not following the fundamental interpretation of Islam because of the way they are breaking with tradition. As I see it, fundamentalism is a strict and literal adherence to teachings of the Quran and Islamic tradition (not necessarily extremism as I apply that term primarily to militant radicals...however one could argue that fundamentalism is extreme compared to moderate practice).

In moderate Muslims you see many still proclaiming to follow Islam, yet they are modernizing and abandoning many of the traditional practices. You can see it in how they dress, how they interact with females in public, the fact that they don't pray five times a day, that they drink alcohol, that they are tolerant of other religions, etc. A key example would be that feel the call for armed jihad is simply a thing of the past. This is stark contrast with true fundamentalists live their life by the book.

The vast majority of militant clerics are considered fundamentalists (although not all Islamic terrorists are fundamentalists). The clerics exploit the weakness of their followers fundamentalism by using the teachings in a way that convince them they must act out against the infidels if they are truly good Muslims.

I understand what you are getting at, and in the context of the discussion perhaps more clarification should be given when using the terms extremist, fundamentalist, etc.

Lerxst · Jan 14, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
and the mantrum begins....

More worthless ad homs. junk is a good word though, that is all you post, loud mouthed "junk", so far two paragraphs where you claim victory for posting contradictory nonsense and baiting trolling. you rawk!

Now an intellectually wanting semantics post. You do know when you "scapel" your little hammer into other countries without thier permission you are breaking that county's sovereignty.

:lol: at your "e-command pressence"

You fail on so many levels.....

Why are you bringing up the basement? I am simply refering to your little mantrums up here. and if you are going to violate vegas, perhaps you should try to at least be honorable about it and not lie.

Like I said, we can compare dd214's any time you want. keep trolling though.

yeah I am not going to comment here because I have what cops should have, it is called "self control". this is a vegas violation. Please show some self control :roll:

You are losing all self control kid, every paragraph of yours contains a little personal attack or two. is this how you "debate"? pathetic.

But I love how you think we should send in small man teams without softening up an area as an ONLY solution.

I think you are more worries about the terrorists and what france thinks of us than the safety of those who serve. shame on you.

Again with the personal attacks, give it up kid, all I am doing is laughing at you. See I could come back and slam you left and right, But I wont. Why? because I have what is called self control....

And you fail as usual... "MOUT" is all military actions that are planned and conducted on a terrain complex where man-made construction affects the tactical options available to the commander.

perhaps you should be the one "looking it up".....

FAIL

The fail is in your inability to actually understand the context of the conversation we were in. Hence your perceived victory here. You simply don't get it. Just because you post an all inclusive definition does not mean you even grasp the concept of how MOUT warfare should be conducted let alone why we shouldn't just level whole neighborhoods. The FAIL here isn't on my part.

FAIL. If you are going to lie, try not to make it so blatant.

Fail again. lying gets us nowhere.

How did we invade Afghanistan without violating sovereignty? you talk out of both sides of your mouth. :lol:

simple, because it is a moronic question.... or maybe I should give you Obama's answer and say "Pakistan".... would that make you feel better? :lol:

***yawn***

do you have how to "e-thug and be cool on the internet"? :lol:

Just because you can't argue what I post, claiming that I have not posted a single bit of substance while posting pages of attakcs does not make it true.

No explanations yet. Whining about ad hom while 90% of your post is nothing but. And still completely devoid of any talk of your expanding upon your solution, as I have repeatedly requested.

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 14, 2009

Lerxst said:
No explanations yet. Whining about ad hom while 90% of your post is nothing but. And still completely devoid of any talk of your expanding upon your solution, as I have repeatedly requested.

Here let me try your method...

"I think we should have world peace and people should just hug each other"?

SEE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU OBVIOUSLY YOU NEVER SERVED IN THE MILITARY OR YOU WOULD KNOW WORLD PEACE IS THE END GAME!!

YOU THINK THAT WE SHOULD KILL ALL ARABS. WHY WON'T YOU TELL ME WHY YOU THINK WE SHOULD KILL ALL ARABS!!!!

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH....

uhm yeah., I have better things to do than to deal with this sort of nonsense.

How is that.

Lerxst · Jan 14, 2009

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Here let me try your method...

uhm yeah., I have better things to do than to deal with this sort of nonsense.

How is that.

If I were you I would start with simply explaining your "solution." So far all you have done is agree with mine after claiming I didn't have one. And now you are just getting mad.

This whole thing can get back on track if you would simply substantiate what you claimed in this argument. It's all I've asked you to do. What you are doing is taking shots at me, and when I respond exposing your anemic tactic for what it is, you complain about me baiting and cat calling you.

But if that is all you are interested in.

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 14, 2009

Lerxst said:
If I were you I would start with simply explaining your "solution." So far all you have done is agree with mine after claiming I didn't have one. And now you are just getting mad.

I am not like you lerxst, I don't get mad at the Internet. :lol:

This whole thing can get back on track if you would simply substantiate what you claimed in this argument. It's all I've asked you to do. What you are doing is taking shots at me, and when I respond exposing your anemic tactic for what it is, you complain about me baiting and cat calling you.

But if that is all you are interested in.

Yeah are you serious? Are you suggesting that after pages of your ad homs, that I am the one taking shots at you?

Please.

I asked you last post, What specific questions do you want me to answer?

As far as a solution goes, Id be happy to get into it once you provide your solution, other than regurgitating slogans and ambiguous goals as long as you leave out the nonsense that mucks up your posts.

Like I said brother, you want respect you need to show some.

Lerxst · Jan 14, 2009

Wow...just wow. Okay, I see what you are doing. And that's fine. You're done. Whenever you are interested in actually debating and not making me repeat myself, you just let me know. The very specific questions I asked you are still here in the thread, my ideas (ones you have said you agree with already) are still right here in this thread. I don't know if your scroll button doesn't work or what, but I'm not doing this dance anymore.

ReverendHellh0und · Jan 14, 2009

Lerxst said:
Wow...just wow. Okay, I see what you are doing. And that's fine. You're done. Whenever you are interested in actually debating and not making me repeat myself, you just let me know. The very specific questions I asked you are still here in the thread, my ideas (ones you have said you agree with already) are still right here in this thread. I don't know if your scroll button doesn't work or what, but I'm not doing this dance anymore.

I just have no interest in wading through your crap.

Ah well

buh Bye! :lol: :2wave:

Lerxst · Jan 14, 2009

JMak said:
It is a fetish. And I don't deny that the concern with root causes is "real." Of course it's real. My problem is that the root causes fetish is dangerous as it leads us to avoid dealing with the real root cause...Islamic violence.

Modern and moderate Islam is discarding the use of violence as a practice. I agree that there is still a fundamental application of violence within the religion as it is practiced by some, but not the majority.

Instead, this root causes business has caused us to blame the victims rather than the perps.

This reminds me of the "liberals empower terrorists" rhetoric. Your logic is wrong. The root causes analysis, when done with honesty, expose the culpability of all involved. Western interventionism in the Middle East has, for decades, been anything but benevolent. It has consistently been focused on forwarding U.S. interests and very rarely been focused on interests of the citizens of the nation being intervened within. The west absolutely has culpability in this situation.

In other words, this root causes analysis typically leads to some vague notion of American or western culpability. I call it a fetish because it seems to be driven by some anti-American, anti-western attitude.

Again I completely disagree with your. Your attitude is a prime example of the problem here. Complete denial of culpability in the face of decades worth of evidence to the contrary. Us against them, they are wrong, we are right.

Colonialism, poverty, US troops in Saudi Arabia, etc.

Those are actual contributing problems and they haven't gone away nor has the message changed.

You're quibbling on the margins.

Not at all. You're dismissing western transgressions for apparently no reason at all other than you view Islam negatively.

The core reason politicians and scholars have settled on to explain Islamic terrorism is the Israel/Palestinian problem. That problem, they argue, is the reason why Muslims commit acts of terrorism against the US, Europe, and elsewhere...a form of protest against the West's support for Israel.

But didn't you understand my point? I was arguing the falsity of that conclusion made by politicians and scholars by noting that Islamic terrorism occurs all over the world and in places where the Israeli/Palestinian problem is a not of any concern at all.

I understand this point, but you didn't make it clear in your first comment. I agree that some scholars and many politicians pin the reason for Islamic terrorism on the Palestinian problem, and some scholars and almost all politicians shy away from the history of violence as taught by many fundamentalists and extremists within Islam. And I agree that they are wrong to place such a limited view on the problem.

However I also think people with your mindset are also a big part of the problem as you seemingly refuse to recognize the west's culpability in the issue. The middle east, one of the most resource rich regions on the planet in terms of being able to produce monetary gain for the nations located there, is rife with economic disparity, corruption, and religious strife. Our interventionism in that region has had a direct impact on how the modern middle east has been shaped and how it's politics have played out.

Moderate Islam is a minority, outside the mainstream.

I disagree.

Not at all. It's the realization that Islam promotes violence. It's from this core of Islam that Islamic extremism flows. Islam teaches that violence is an appropriate method to redress grievances.

Modernist practice of Islam, and moderate thinking is shunning violence and encouraging tolerance. And it's spreading not only in the Middle East but throughout the nation of Islam as a whole. Like Christianity, Islam is turning the corner...it's just taken a long time to get going.

I don't care if you don't find it clever.

Yay.

The fact is that terrorism is a manifestation of a disease, a symptom, not the disease itself.

Your attitude is the manifestation of intolerance and bigotry towards Muslims.

And the west's problem is it's unwillingness or inability to confront even the possibility that islaimic terrorism is, you know, at all connected to...~gasp~...Islam.

No, the wests problem is it's inability to understand or care why there is such strife within the Muslim nations. Decades of oppression, repression, poverty, and dictatorial rule have a lot to do with why Islam has taken so long to modernize. Nobody argues that Islamic terrorism isn't associated with Islam. Your statement is absurd.

The focus on so-called "root causes" leads to finding socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel.

Because that is where much of the problem lies and why it's taken so long for Islam to begin modernizing.

What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western "progressives" pave the way for Islamist barbarity? If the problem is not connected to Islamic beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Well?

Your logic depends entirely upon you setting up and framing your questions in such a way that no intelligent, objective answer can be given other than to say "that is a ridiculous statement." Western progressives do not pave the way for Islamic barbarity, to say so would require one to adopt your flawed point of view. Nobody argues that Islamic violence is not connected to Islam.

Regarding your comment about "Christians" living among Muslims under identical circumstances I would challenge you to look up the Kataeb Party, otherwise known as the Christian Phalange, in Lebanon and then tell me Christians in the middle east don't practice violence and terrorism. I would also challenge you to look up the many years of Jewish terrorism in the region. Try Gush Emunim Underground, Terror Against Terror (formed by the Kach political movement), Egrof Magen (Defending Shield), Irgun, and the Stern Gang.

In Ireland Catholics and Protestants both indulged in horrible acts of terrorism and violence. In central and south America where religion is predominantly Christian (Catholic dominated for the most part) terrorism gripped nations by the throat for decades.

So tell me how Christians haven't resorted to terrorism. Christianity is the disease right? Judaism is the disease right?

Terrorism is a methodology applied by religious and non-religious groups as well as governmental and non-governmental organizations.

Jan. 1 Attack By CIA Killed Two Leaders Of Al-Qaeda

I don't respect you.

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

I don't respect you.

I don't respect you.

U mad bro?

U mad bro?

I don't respect you.

U mad bro?

I don't respect you.

U mad bro?

I don't respect you.

U mad bro?