But who was right – Rudy or Ron?

bhkad · Jun 23, 2007

And what did Osama bin Laden learn, like millions since him, was necessary to vanquish Jahiliyya and restore Islam to all the Earth?

Islamic vanguard

To restore Islam on earth and free Muslims from "jahili society, jahili concepts, jahili traditions and jahili leadership," (p.21) Qutb preaches that a vanguard (tali'a) be formed modeling itself after the original Muslims, the "Companions of the Prophet" (Sahaba). These Muslims successfully vanquished Jahiliyyah (Qutb believes) principally for two reasons:

* They cut themselves off from the Jahiliyyah -- i.e. they ignored the learning and culture of non-Muslim groups (Greeks, Romans, Persians, Christians or Jews), and separated themselves from their old non-Muslim friends and family. (p.16, 20)

* They looked to the Qur'an for orders to obey, not as "learning and information" or solutions to problems. (p.17-18)

Following these principles the vanguard will fight Jahiliyyah with a two-fold approach: preaching, and "the movement" (jama'at). Preaching will persuade people to become true Muslims, while the movement will remove by "physical power and Jihaad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the Jahili system." (p.55) Foremost amongst these organizations and people is the "political power which rests on a complex yet interrelated ideological, racial, class, social and economic support," (p.59) but ultimately includes "the whole human environment." (p.72) Force is necessary, Qutb explains, because it is naive to expect "those who have usurped the authority of God" to "give up their power" without a fight. (p.58-9)

Remaining aloof from Jahiliyyah and its values and culture, but preaching and forcibly abolishing authority within it, the vanguard will travel the road, gradually growing from a cell of "three individuals ... to ten, the ten to a hundred, the hundred to a thousand, and the thousand ... to twelve thousand," and blossom into a truly Islamic community. The community may start in the "homeland of Islam" but this is by no means "the ulimate objective of the Islamic movement of Jihad." (p.72) Jihad must not merely be defensive, it must be offensive, (p.62) and its objective must be to carry Islam "throughout the earth to the whole of mankind." (p.72)

True Muslims should maintain a "sense of supremacy" and "superiority," (p.141) on the road of renewal, but it is important that they also prepare themselves for a "life until death in poverty, difficulty, frustration, torment and sacrifice" (p.157), and even to brace themselves for possibility of death by torture at the hands of Jahiliyyah's sadistic, "arrogant, mischievous, criminal and degraded people." (p.150) Qutb ends his book by an example of persecution against Muslims from the Quran's "surat al-buruj," enjoining modern-day Muslims to tolerate the same or worse tortures for the sake of carrying out God's will. After all, "this world is not a place of reward"; the believer's reward is in heaven. (p.150, 157)

[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ma'alim_fi-l-Tariq

And so, "If its because of our freedoms then why did Bin Ladin wait until the late 80s/early 90s to not only stop being our friend, but become our enemy?"

Because he was not given to emotional, knee jerk reactions but instead planned his war against Jahiliyya and us until he was ready. He attacked the godless Soviets who were the greatest threat to his Muslim brethren and to Islam in that region. And the Mujahideen were quite willing to accept our assistance to defeat the USSR.

But he never considered us his friends.

I conclude with this.

Islam and Europe

AEI Newsletter
By Bernard Lewis
Posted: Thursday, March 22, 2007
SPEECHES
April 2007 Newsletter
Publication Date: April 1, 2007

On March 7, 2007, Bernard Lewis, the legendary historian of the Middle East, delivered the Irving Kristol Lecture at AEI’s Annual Dinner. Edited excerpts follow.

The Muslim attack on Christendom . . . has gone through three phases. The first is from the very beginning of Islam, when the new faith spilled out of the Arabian Peninsula, where it was born, into the Middle East and beyond. It was then that the Muslims conquered Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa--all at that time part of the Christian world--and went beyond into Europe, conquering a sizable part of southwestern Europe and occupying for a while parts of France.

After a long and bitter struggle, the Christians managed to retake part, but not all, of the territory they had lost. They succeeded in Europe, and in a sense Europe was defined by the limits of that success. They failed to retake North Africa or the Middle East, which were lost to Christendom. Notably, they failed to recapture the Holy Land. . . .

That was not the end of the matter. The Islamic world, having failed the first time, was bracing for the second attack, this time conducted not by Arabs and Moors, but by Turks and Tatars. They conquered Anatolia and Russia and captured the ancient Christian citadel of Constantinople. They conquered a large part of the Balkans. Twice they conquered half of Hungary. Twice they reached as far as Vienna. Barbary corsairs from North Africa--well known to historians of the United States--were raiding Western Europe. They went to Iceland--the uttermost limit.

Again, Europe counterattacked, this time more successfully and more rapidly. They succeeded in recovering Russia and the Balkan Peninsula, and in advancing farther into the Islamic lands, chasing their former rulers from whence they had come. For this phase of European counterattack, a new term was invented: imperialism. When the peoples of Asia and Africa invaded Europe, this was not imperialism. When Europe attacked Asia and Africa, it was. This European counterattack began a new phase which brought the European attack into the very heart of the Middle East. In our own time, we have seen the end of that domination.

***

Osama bin Laden had this to say about the war in Afghanistan, the war which led to the defeat and retreat of the Red Army and the collapse of the Soviet Union. We tend to see that as a Western victory--more specifically an American victory--in the Cold War against the Soviets. For Osama bin Laden, it was nothing of the kind. It was a Muslim victory in a jihad. . . . As bin Laden put it, “We have met, defeated, and destroyed the more dangerous and the more deadly of the two infidel superpowers. Dealing with the soft, pampered and effeminate Americans will be an easy matter.”

This belief was confirmed in the 1990s when we saw attacks on American bases and installations with virtually no effective response of any kind--only angry words and expensive missiles dispatched to remote and uninhabited places. This was a sequence leading up to 9/11. It was clearly intended to be the completion of the first sequence and the beginning of the new one, taking the war into the heart of the enemy camp.

The third phase has clearly begun. We should not delude ourselves as to what it is and what it means. This time it is taking different forms--two in particular--terror and migration.

***

Where do we stand now? The Muslims have certain advantages. They have fervor and conviction, which in most Western countries are either weak or lacking. They are self-assured of the rightness of their cause, whereas we spend most of our time in self-denigration and self-abasement. They have loyalty and discipline, and perhaps most important, they have demography, the combination of natural increase and migration leading to major population changes which could lead within the foreseeable future to significant majorities in some European countries.

But we also have some advantages, the most important of which are knowledge and freedom. The appeal of genuine modern knowledge to a society which, in the more distant past, had a long record of scientific and scholarly achievement, is obvious. They are keenly and painfully aware of their relative backwardness and welcome the opportunity to rectify it.

Less obvious but also powerful is the appeal of freedom. In the past, in the Islamic world the word “freedom” was not used in a political sense. Freedom was a legal concept, not a political concept as in the West. But the idea of freedom in its Western interpretation is making headway. It is becoming more and more understood, more and more appreciated, and more and more desired. It is perhaps in the long run our best hope--perhaps even our only hope--of surviving this developing struggle.

AEI - Short Publications

Trajan Octavian Titus · Jun 23, 2007

zero18 said:
Yeah, you know more about terrorism than CIA officers and experts on Osama bin Ladin. :lol:

Blowback

"I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because 'we’re over there,' basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate." ~ CIA analyst, Michael Sheuer
Antiwar.com Blog · Michael Scheuer

Your self-absorbed mental masturbation doesn't qualify as debate.

Islamic Fascism and acts of terrorism don't have anything to do with our foreign policy it has to do with THEIR foreign policy, it's called jahilliya which means ignorance prior to the time of the revelations of Mohammad, Qutb the ideological forbearer to Osama Bin Laden taught that the decadence and freedoms from the west were distracting Muslims from the true faith IE their puritanical version of Islam and bringing even Muslims back to jahilliya and in order to combat this the west must be destroyed and replaced with Islamic regimes under the caliphate and the first step to this goal is get the west out of the Middle East to set up a pan-Islamic empire from which to springboard to one world under Islam. Ignorant hacks like Ron Paul are not just stupid they're ****ing dangerous because they blame the victim rather than the aggressor and in so doing lead people to think that we can all live in harmony so long as the west gives into the demands of the Islamic Fascists. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. has far more often than not backed Muslims in General and Arabs in particular, infact in the last 11 of 12 major conflicts involving Muslims and Non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, and Arabs and non-Arabs, the U.S. has backed the former over the latter:

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism

by Barry Rubin
From Foreign Affairs, November/December 2002

DAMN YANKEES

SINCE LAST YEAR'S attacks on New York and Washington, the conventional wisdom about the motivation behind such deadly terrorism has gelled. The violence, we are often told, was a reaction to misguided U.S. policies. For years, certain American actions-such as the country's support for Israel and for unpopular, oppressive Arab regimes-had supposedly produced profound grievances throughout the Middle East. Those grievances came to a boil over time, and finally spilled over on September 11. The result was more than 3,000 American deaths.

Although anti-Americanism is genuinely widespread among Arab governments and peoples, however, there is something seriously misleading in this account. Arab and Muslim hatred of the United States is not just, or even mainly, a response to actual U.S. policies-policies that, if anything, have been remarkably pro-Arab and pro-Muslim over the years. Rather, such animus is largely the product of self-interested manipulation by various groups within Arab society, groups that use anti-Americanism as a foil to distract public attention from other, far more serious problem within those societies.

This distinction should have a profound impact on American policymakers. If Arab anti-Americanism turns out to be grounded in domestic maneuvering rather than American misdeeds, neither launching a public relations campaign nor changing Washington's policies will affect it. In fact, if the United States tries to prove to the Arab world that its intentions are nonthreatening, it could end up making matters even worse. New American attempts at appeasement would only show radicals in the Middle East that their anti-American strategy has succeeded and is the best way to win concessions from the world's sole superpower.

The Real Roots of Arab Anti-Americanism by Barry Rubin

bhkad · Jun 23, 2007

zero18 said:
Yeah, you know more about terrorism than CIA officers and experts on Osama bin Ladin. :lol:

Blowback

"I thought Mr. Paul captured it the other night exactly correctly. This war is dangerous to America because it’s based, not on gender equality, as Mr. Giuliani suggested, or any other kind of freedom, but simply because of what we do in the Islamic World – because 'we’re over there,' basically, as Mr. Paul said in the debate." ~ CIA analyst, Michael Sheuer
Antiwar.com Blog · Michael Scheuer

Your self-absorbed mental masturbation doesn't qualify as debate.

Neither Sheuer nor Paul recognize the ideology of Jihad and without that we'd have already lost.

Trajan Octavian Titus · Jun 23, 2007

bhkad said:
Neither Sheuer nor Paul recognize the ideology of Jihad and without that we'd have already lost.

Funny that these people promote Scheuer I wonder if they would support him if the really knew his views for example in his book Imperial Hubris he states some of the following assinine viewpoints:

be bloody-minded and kill in large numbers (241-42); fight without principle ("engaging in whatever martial behavior is needed") (242); "stop knee-jerk yellow ribboning" (242-43); depend on ourselves, not others (specifically, Pakistan) (243-44); accept that we are at war with Islam (249-50); "learn to watch others die with equanimity" (250-52); Coalition-building after 9/11 wasted time, imposed civilized standards, and counterproductively associated the U.S. with oppression elsewhere (222-26); U.S. policy mentality too legalistic (185-86);

Scheuer's nuts.

bhkad · Jun 23, 2007

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Funny that these people promote Scheuer I wonder if they would support him if the really knew his views for example in his book Imperial Hubris he states some of the following assinine viewpoints:

Scheuer's nuts.

Up until this year I had always seen him as suitably determined and gung ho against jihadists and OBL. But only after I finally looked closely at what he believes did I realize that anyone who lists him as a source is really not looking closely at the subject of global jihad.

I saw him on FOX today, I think, and I can't tell you how closely I scrutinized his brief segment.

He hides the shortcomings of his beliefs well.

That is just one reason I believe we are unarmed in this war of ideas. We all can't recognize that this guy has no business being called an 'expert.'

Billo_Really · Jun 23, 2007

if the United States tries to prove to the Arab world that its intentions are nonthreatening, it could end up making matters even worse. New American attempts at appeasement would only show radicals in the Middle East that their anti-American strategy has succeeded and is the best way to win concessions from the world's sole superpower.

This is way too convenient. If we act in non-threatening ways it will make matters worse!? Classic example of double-speak. American foreign policy does play a role in some of this hatred. Even the Pentagon has acknowledged this. And refraining from starting un-provoked wars of aggression has nothing to do with appeasement. "Appeasement" is just another neocon buzzword that has no definition in reality.

UBL objected to US troops on Saudi soil. Still, much of the preceding posts on him was pretty accurate. Except the noting that they hate us because of our freedoms. That's just total bullshit. They hate our bombs more than our freedoms.

We would rather conjur up some big bad boogie man instead of seeing if there are things we are doing to enable this hatred. If you think the problem is always THEM, you will never solve the problem.

And no, the problem isn't 100% us either!

bhkad · Jun 23, 2007

Billo_Really said:
This is way too convenient. If we act in non-threatening ways it will make matters worse!? Classic example of double-speak. American foreign policy does play a role in some of this hatred. Even the Pentagon has acknowledged this. And refraining from starting un-provoked wars of aggression has nothing to do with appeasement. "Appeasement" is just another neocon buzzword that has no definition in reality.

UBL objected to US troops on Saudi soil. Still, much of the preceding posts on him was pretty accurate. Except the noting that they hate us because of our freedoms. That's just total bullshit. They hate our bombs more than our freedoms.

We would rather conjur up some big bad boogie man instead of seeing if there are things we are doing to enable this hatred. If you think the problem is always THEM, you will never solve the problem.

And no, the problem isn't 100% us either!

I appreciate your recognition that the fault is not 100% ours.

And that is why I say that Ron Paul isn't looking at the situation realistically.

He said that we were 'over there' bombing for 10 years and that is why 'they' are mad at us.

Well, we had a right to be there. The nations we had bases in allowed us to be there. The people we were bombing for 10 years was IRAQ. SADDAM'S Iraq. No one has solid evidence that OBL loved Saddam so the fact that we were bombing Iraq had NOTHING to do with OBL's 9/11 attack.

But if Ron Paul was trying to say that the 9/11 attacks were caused by our having bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the M.E. where we flew bombing missions FROM, well then he might have a case.

But then it comes back, once again, to a question of, "who is the nation's sovereign?" The Government or the people? The Government, the people, or an extremist group?

If Saudi Arabia asked us to set up a base on their land, or in other words, If the Government says, "Yea!" But the jihadists say, "Nay!" where would Ron Paul fall?

It's clear that he would respect the wishes of the jihadist extremists.

If we ever decide to build a fence along the Mexican border we mustn't make a pact with the Mexican government. We'd have to get the permission of the smugglers, if we used Ron Paul's reasoning.

bhkad · Jun 23, 2007

Billo_Really said:
Except the noting that they hate us because of our freedoms. That's just total bullshit. They hate our bombs more than our freedoms.

They certainly hate our bombs.

But to me the, "they hate our freedoms" argument is a kind of shorthand for saying that everything we are free to do in the West is prohibited in the extremist Islamic view, where the only freedoms they endorse are those permitted by the Koran.

SFLRN · Jun 24, 2007

bhkad said:
This is the first time I recall seeing someone express this thought and it's been an unspoken question of mine for some time.
But to your point, what evidence do we have that this does happen and if so, to what degree?

I will speak in generalities and look into possible journal articles on this topic and post on it as information becomes available. In general the Christian "crusades" involved the traditional ones and ones conducted in the 16th century designed to drive pagans out of different lands. The first crusades did involve the expanding Selijug dynasty and was partially designed to counteract that expansion. The crusades didn't start to die off until the Reformation and the Renaisance changed the political climate. Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (I will provide a better source when one becomes available). To speak in generalities, the Church had a significant degree of power at the time. Most of the people lived in poor conditions and had little chance to move up in life and little real freedom by any measure. The Church generally provided a measure of hope in that those who had a poor life on earth would be rewarded with the promise of Heaven. In general, people figured it was a good idea to adhere to religious guidelines so as to facilitate a idylic afterlife. The problem is, the people who could actually interpret the Bible, which was for the most spoken in Latin, were clergymen who were associated with the Church. Illiteracy rates were high and individuals relied heavily upon the Church to provide them with religious instruction. This would of course give the Church significant control over how exactly the Bible is interpreted. That allowed them to exercise a great deal of control over these individuals and would also allow them to provoke things like crusades and other smaller acts. When the Reformation and Renaissance came along there was a direct intellectual challenge to the Church’s authority. This break ultimately limited the Church as a religious power and prevented it from exercising the same control over such a large group of people and the political leaders of Europe as well. Both of these political events reshaped the climate of the time and caused for a decline in crusades (although it never wore off entirely and was present in colonization attempts).
There are a few key connections to radical jihadists and the crusader sentiment. In both instances many individuals lacked the knowledge to actively challenge the teachings of the religious authorities. For example, Hamas has been known to provide schooling for Palestinian children. For most poor children this is the only means of receiving an education (as it was for some children and religious schools farther back). These schools generally amount to nothing more than indoctrination camps and help mold young children into young terrorists. Terrorist organizations also provide aid to the poor people like political machines did in America in the past. The dependence fostered by this aid enhances the support for such terrorist organizations. If Hamas is seen as a provider of valuable services then the poor are more likely to support them despite their violent activities. This kind of manipulation through aid is present in other organizations as well (Hezbollah gave money to victims who had their houses destroyed after Israel invaded Lebanon only a little bit back).
The political and economic atmosphere also restricts many forms of political expression; thus, encouraging violent responses. In short, both the economic and political conditions create a climate in which individuals have little real freedom to advance or to express their political views. This climate that was present during the crusades creates a reliance on religiously motivated terrorist cells and enhances their support. Counteracting the underlying economic and political reasons would help limit this reliance and the support of these organizations as a result. I will add more to this in a later post and perhaps summarize it in a more concise manner as well.

Billo_Really · Jun 24, 2007

Originally posted by bhkad
They certainly hate our bombs.

But to me the, "they hate our freedoms" argument is a kind of shorthand for saying that everything we are free to do in the West is prohibited in the extremist Islamic view, where the only freedoms they endorse are those permitted by the Koran.

To be quite honest about this, I don't give a s.h.i.t what they can and cannot do with respect to their religion. That's their problem. If they don't like it, get a new religion. From what I have seen, I don't think Islam is wrong or a bad religion. But I am certainly not an expert on that subject. I was raised a Catholic. So it's not my dance. I do believe religion is absolutely no reason to go to war. I do believe jihad is a myth. You cannot kill in the name of God. I have stated several times, you cannot be for war and for God at the same time. It is either one or the other.

And on a personal note, in my line of work [engineering], I have met many muslim's over the years as co-workers. In the limited amount of time we interacted [40 hours a week/8 hours a day], they have been some of the most kind, nicest and sincere people I have ever met. But again, I only knew them during working hours.

bhkad · Jun 24, 2007

Billo_Really said:
To be quite honest about this, I don't give a s.h.i.t what they can and cannot do with respect to their religion. That's their problem. If they don't like it, get a new religion. From what I have seen, I don't think Islam is wrong or a bad religion. But I am certainly not an expert on that subject. I was raised a Catholic. So it's not my dance. I do believe religion is absolutely no reason to go to war. I do believe jihad is a myth. You cannot kill in the name of God. I have stated several times, you cannot be for war and for God at the same time. It is either one or the other.

And on a personal note, in my line of work [engineering], I have met many muslim's over the years as co-workers. In the limited amount of time we interacted [40 hours a week/8 hours a day], they have been some of the most kind, nicest and sincere people I have ever met. But again, I only knew them during working hours.

People say I'm a pretty nice guy in person. But if my country called I would answer the call and pick up arms.

After reading my post from yesterday for you to say this means you are intentionally ignoring the facts presented. Only someone with a committed alternative agenda can say that they believe jihad is a myth.

Billo_Really · Jun 24, 2007

Originally posted by bhkad
He said that we were 'over there' bombing for 10 years and that is why 'they' are mad at us.

Well, we had a right to be there. The nations we had bases in allowed us to be there. The people we were bombing for 10 years was IRAQ. SADDAM'S Iraq. No one has solid evidence that OBL loved Saddam so the fact that we were bombing Iraq had NOTHING to do with OBL's 9/11 attack.

But if Ron Paul was trying to say that the 9/11 attacks were caused by our having bases in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the M.E. where we flew bombing missions FROM, well then he might have a case.

But then it comes back, once again, to a question of, "who is the nation's sovereign?" The Government or the people? The Government, the people, or an extremist group?

If Saudi Arabia asked us to set up a base on their land, or in other words, If the Government says, "Yea!" But the jihadists say, "Nay!" where would Ron Paul fall?

It's clear that he would respect the wishes of the jihadist extremists.

If we ever decide to build a fence along the Mexican border we mustn't make a pact with the Mexican government. We'd have to get the permission of the smugglers, if we used Ron Paul's reasoning.

There is nothing we have done internationally with our military, diplomats or covert ops that would justify what happened on 9/11. You just don't settle disputes in that manner. UBL publically stated his objection to US troops on Saudi soil. I personally feel, "So what! It's none of his god-damn business!" He's not a member of the Saudi government.

As far as us, we are a member nation of the UN. And in being as such, we agreed to respect the UN Charter. Which we also co-authored. Sovereign nations are just that. Regime change is against international law.

Article 2

The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfill in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter Vll.

SFLRN · Jun 25, 2007

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Islamic Fascism and acts of terrorism don't have anything to do with our foreign policy it has to do with THEIR foreign policy.... Ignorant hacks like Ron Paul are not just stupid they're ****ing dangerous because they blame the victim rather than the aggressor and in so doing lead people to think that we can all live in harmony so long as the west gives into the demands of the Islamic Fascists. Not to mention the fact that the U.S. has far more often than not backed Muslims in General and Arabs in particular, infact in the last 11 of 12 major conflicts involving Muslims and Non-Muslims, Muslims and secular forces, and Arabs and non-Arabs, the U.S. has backed the former over the latter:

Part of your diagnosis is correct. There is a large amount of evidence to suggest that internal factors are fostering this radical brand of Islamic fascism. However, that does not entirely explain the anti-U.S. sentiment that has grown in recent years. Terrorists in most of these states focus on internal attacks to destabilize opposing political factions. Those attacks spread when the foreign policy of another nation enrages the extremists. It is absolutely true to say that poor conditions in the Middle East make jihadism more popular as an ideology. When you add in bad policies (intervention in Iran) by foreign powers you will draw attention to yourself. Here is an example, In Country B a terrorist group is opposed to a less politically oppress and more democratic party that endorses some degree of secular law. There goal (in general) is to gain power or give someone with similar ideals power. They can do this through a number of ways some of which are very similar to the actions of some political machines in America in the past. But what will really help their cause is if some foreign power (generally a western one) comes in and does something like imposing severe sanctions upon a country (or getting rid of a leader who might have been less than friendly to the U.S.). Now if these terrorists and those of similar minds were saying how evil the west was all along and a western power does something like impose severe sanctions its likely that political sect will see a surge in power (like in Iran). More of the public feels they have a common enemy and the less hardline sentiments start to fade away. The example simply shows that even with internal problems, a foreign power can act as a catalyst and strengthen specific groups politically. If a bombing in Spain causes the Spanish to bomb a housing area in hopes of killing a terrorist then the hardliners have gained a political victory. The whole point of terrorism (as Zbigniew Brzezinski notes) is to create an overly large response that creates sympathy or support for a certain political group. In short, internal factors help make the powder keg and bad foreign policy lights it (from time to time).

Onine · Jun 25, 2007

I have a better question: Who is smarter? Who is the bumbling idiot?

The answer to that is obvious.

bhkad · Jun 25, 2007

Billo_Really said:
There is nothing we have done internationally with our military, diplomats or covert ops that would justify what happened on 9/11. You just don't settle disputes in that manner. UBL publically stated his objection to US troops on Saudi soil. I personally feel, "So what! It's none of his god-damn business!" He's not a member of the Saudi government.

As far as us, we are a member nation of the UN. And in being as such, we agreed to respect the UN Charter. Which we also co-authored. Sovereign nations are just that. Regime change is against international law.

We had other reasons for invading besides the suspected WMD's, you know. Oil. Global economy. Containing Iran's imperialism. Human rights violations.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. That's sufficient grounds I'd say.

And if you call for our unquestioned obedience to UN edicts that means you agree that we should have a one world government and the UN is the headquarters.

And that also means you are opposed to the armed opposition by Hamas and the Palestinians to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273.

Billo_Really · Jun 25, 2007

Originally posted by bhkad
We had other reasons for invading besides the suspected WMD's, you know. Oil. Global economy. Containing Iran's imperialism. Human rights violations.
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. That's sufficient grounds I'd say.

And if you call for our unquestioned obedience to UN edicts that means you agree that we should have a one world government and the UN is the headquarters.

And that also means you are opposed to the armed opposition by Hamas and the Palestinians to the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 273.

It takes a really arrogant SOB to think he has a right to involve himself in the internal affairs of other nations. As well as someone who has no respect for the rule of law. As well as someone who, quite frankly, is un-American. Because Americans stay true to their words, treaties, agreements. Americans obey the law.

BTW, we violated our own law, not just international law, by invading Iraq. Article 51 of the UN Charter has been ratified by our Congress. Thus making it part of our Constitution. You believe in the Constitution, do you not?