What The Hell Do The Brits Know?

[1549]

What if we identify that war IS going to help this region? It is obvious that negotiation and appeasement have not worked. So, ruling out those three aforementioned options, what do YOU recommend (presumptious of me to assume you posses one of those "better minds" but, what the hell, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt).

By better minds I was not referring to myself--I was thinking of the scholars and government minds with intellect that dwarfs the minds of message board posters (like us). To say that the war will help the region defies all logic. You did not dispute the causes of violence that I posted before. The war does not solve any of those issues.

I would guess that the solution would have to come from many angles and involve the international community.

1: Make concessions. For starters: recognize palestine. Doing so alleviates one source of tension and shows that the U.S. is looking to help the Islamic world, not destroy it.

2: Make ammends with the rest of the globe. I know we all like to think that the U.S. does not need the support of others to succeed, but in this case we do. Having the support of the UN helps eliminate the "us vs. them" mentality that exists in the muslim world. It also makes it more difficult for arab leaders to villify the U.S.

3: Crack down on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is our "ally" in the region, yet their national wahhabi practices are the most extreme in the arab world and it breeds resentment of the west. We have turned our cheek to the Saudi's disgusting way of governing because of oil...that needs to change. Embargos and other UN actions can pressure the Saudi crown into mellowing their ways.

4: Extend humanitarian aid across the region. Israel's practice of bulldozing villages doesn't work. We should be building them instead. Helping to build infrastructure is essential to bettering life for the people of muslim nations. The U.S. can not do this unless they have the UN on their side. No leader will turn down humanitarian aid when pressured by the entire world.

Some posters here will criticize these ideas to no end, but the fundamental concepts of global support and bettering the common arab man are necessary.

 

[Gunny]

My argument was in the context of internment in the United States. I am only referring to muslims that are U.S. citizens.--those that would be interned. That group has a solid track record in the United States.

Your truth does not offend me, it is just skewed. The problem is not arab muslims. The root causes of violence in the middle east: enormous wealth disparity, mass poverty, bitterness over the fall of their empire, arbitrary nation boundaries set by colonial empires.

From there, other problems arise. This strife creates the perfect platform for manipulators and extremists. They can penetrate all rungs of society and call out nations like the United States as scapegoats.

Work on the initial root causes, the problems can be at least alleviated. Go to war with the middle east and only more chaos is created; the problems are exacerbated.

Throw christians, jews, buddhists, or hindus in similar conditions for a few generations and the results will be similar. It is human nature.

My truth is skewed? Shit, you comment is retarded. You're just another one of those people who think you can negotiate with snakes. No matter what you say or do, teh snake is going to strike. Unless you kill it first.

 

[1549]

My truth is skewed? Shit, you comment is retarded. You're just another one of those people who think you can negotiate with snakes. No matter what you say or do, teh snake is going to strike. Unless you kill it first.

Thanks Barry Goldwater, but didn't you say the same thing about the USSR? I am glad the U.S. chose not to vote for you.

 

[Gunny]

Thanks Barry Goldwater, but didn't you say the same thing about the USSR? I am glad the U.S. chose not to vote for you.

Yeah, right. I remember the last guy who thought like you that was President of the US -- Jimmy Carter. What a success he was. You sound just as idealistic and unrealistic as he did.

 

[1549]

Yeah, right. I remember the last guy who thought like you that was President of the US -- Jimmy Carter. What a success he was. You sound just as idealistic and unrealistic as he did.

Carter's downfall was a lack of leadership.

The traditional knock against Carter is his handling of the Iranian hostage crisis. It is tough to say what other presidents would have done. The failed rescue mission was a stray from Carter's typical "ideals". A president in that situation has to commit to diplomatic persuasion or an all out rescue, doing both--and failing at both--is the worst thing to do.

 

[onedomino]

No one should intern anyone unless they are known terrorist sympathizers and represent a clear and present danger. But the following statement that I read in a post above is truly an idiotic and asinine generalization. Moreover it seeks to justify the unjustifiable and must be strongly condemned:

Throw christians, jews, buddhists, or hindus in similar conditions for a few generations and the results will be similar. It is human nature.

It is most definitely not human nature to commit terrorism and kill innocent human beings. The examples of people who viewed themselves as oppressed yet did not commit terrorism are too numerous to list, but here’s a few:

In the 1930s, Jews who were oppressed perhaps beyond all others blew up no buildings full of innocent Germans. They slaughtered no innocent children on school buses. Yet Muslims commit these acts of horror. And what is profoundly twisted: they think their behavior is justified.

Christian African Americans oppressed in slavery committed no terrorism in Atlanta, Charleston, or anywhere else. Yet Muslims who consider themselves oppressed commit acts of terror all over the planet.

Buddhists who viewed themselves as oppressed by the Catholic minority in Vietnam burned themselves in protest, not others. Muslims burn others: men, women, and children, it makes no difference. And it is not collateral damage, they do it on purpose.

Native Americans who view themselves as oppressed on reservations set no IEDs in Sioux Falls, or anywhere else in the US. Yet killing people with IEDs is the number one Muslim growth industry.

Chinese slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands in WW2 murdered no Japanese children in school houses in Tokyo. Yet Muslims in Chechnya, and elsewhere, have no guilt over such crimes.

American Japanese oppressed and interned by the thousands in WW2 flew no aircraft into buildings in New York City. Yet Palestinians danced in the street when Saudi Arabs did exactly that.

My point is that all races are the problem.

False. It is not a racial problem at all. It is an Islamic religion problem. Ethnic groups such as Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, and others, have killed innocent people with demented abandon. What do these ethnic groups have in common? They are Muslim.

 

[1549]

No one should intern anyone unless they are known terrorist sympathizers and represent a clear and present danger. But the following statement that I read in a post above is truly an idiotic and asinine generalization. Moreover it seeks to justify the unjustifiable and must be strongly condemned:

It is most definitely not human nature to commit terrorism and kill innocent human beings. The examples of people who viewed themselves as oppressed yet did not commit terrorism are too numerous to list, but here’s a few:

In the 1930s, Jews who were oppressed perhaps beyond all others blew up no buildings full of innocent Germans. They slaughtered no innocent children on school buses. Yet Muslims commit these acts of horror. And what is profoundly twisted: they think their behavior is justified.

Christian African Americans oppressed in slavery committed no terrorism in Atlanta, Charleston, or anywhere else. Yet Muslims who consider themselves oppressed commit acts of terror all over the planet.

Buddhists who viewed themselves as oppressed by the Catholic minority in Vietnam burned themselves in protest, not others. Muslims burn others: men, women, and children, it makes no difference. And it is not collateral damage, they do it on purpose.

Native Americans who view themselves as oppressed on reservations set no IEDs in Sioux Falls, or anywhere else in the US. Yet killing people with IEDs is the number one Muslim growth industry.

Chinese slaughtered by the hundreds of thousands in WW2 murdered no Japanese children in school houses in Tokyo. Yet Muslims in Chechnya, and elsewhere, have no guilt over such crimes.

American Japanese oppressed and interned by the thousands in WW2 flew no aircraft into buildings in New York City. Yet Palestinians danced in the street when Saudi Arabs did exactly that.

Before I address your argument, let me clarify my own. I do not necessarily believe that the conditions will lead to terrorism, just violence in general.

ok, now your argument:

The Jews did not lash out in violence, but I framed a time period of "a few generations". The European Jews were suppressed and freed in less than 20 years.

African Americans are an interesting case. They did not revolt while they were slaves. Perhaps it was just completely impossible. However, economic disparity and racial injustice have instigated black violence in the past century or so.

Like the Jews, the monks were faced with a problem in a short period of time.

Some Native Americans were violent against whites. Though the whites did deserve it.

The Chinese never made it to Tokyo, though they may have killed children if they had the chance...especially considering Japan killed Chinese children. This was also a short period of time.

Japanese Americans...small time frame.

The time frame is very important. A lot goes into the development of a violent mindset. Extremist mentalities do not grow over night. Years of strife give birth to the hardliners and hardliners need time to spread their views.

Muslims did not blow up buildings when they were occupied early in the 20th century. It was years of bad governing and economic turmoil (for most) that made this insane form of violence a viable means for a better life.

It was almost one hundred years after slavery that african american extremist groups like the 'Black Panthers' became formidable. If this country does not end long standing practices of structural violence, these groups may grow again.

False. It is not a racial problem at all. It is an Islamic religion problem. Ethnic groups such as Arabs, Iranians, Pakistanis, Indonesians, and others, have killed innocent people with demented abandon. What do these ethnic groups have in common? They are Muslim.

What else do most arabs have in common? Their nations are ravaged by poverty. Social environment is everything...everything.

Africa is a good example. Certain, African nations are at war constantly. In many cases Islam is not a factor in the wars. The problems are arbitrary borders and poverty.

Would you be wrong to say certain sects of muslim are dangerous? No. Wahhabism is an extreme example of the religion. It advocates beheadings for criminals, and is basically unacceptable by modern standards. An outgrowth of Wahhabism is people like Bin Laden who take everything one step further and hope to reclaim the vast empire Islam once held. Eliminate poverty, and you take out the rug from Bin Laden and other ultra-conservative manipulators.

What good is a revolution against the west if the arab people are already satisfied? That quandry is why we must improve conditions in muslim countries. We must give these people a life so they have no interest in losing it.

 

[CSM]

By better minds I was not referring to myself--I was thinking of the scholars and government minds with intellect that dwarfs the minds of message board posters (like us). To say that the war will help the region defies all logic. You did not dispute the causes of violence that I posted before. The war does not solve any of those issues.

I would guess that the solution would have to come from many angles and involve the international community.

1: Make concessions. For starters: recognize palestine. Doing so alleviates one source of tension and shows that the U.S. is looking to help the Islamic world, not destroy it.

2: Make ammends with the rest of the globe. I know we all like to think that the U.S. does not need the support of others to succeed, but in this case we do. Having the support of the UN helps eliminate the "us vs. them" mentality that exists in the muslim world. It also makes it more difficult for arab leaders to villify the U.S.

3: Crack down on Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia is our "ally" in the region, yet their national wahhabi practices are the most extreme in the arab world and it breeds resentment of the west. We have turned our cheek to the Saudi's disgusting way of governing because of oil...that needs to change. Embargos and other UN actions can pressure the Saudi crown into mellowing their ways.

4: Extend humanitarian aid across the region. Israel's practice of bulldozing villages doesn't work. We should be building them instead. Helping to build infrastructure is essential to bettering life for the people of muslim nations. The U.S. can not do this unless they have the UN on their side. No leader will turn down humanitarian aid when pressured by the entire world.

Some posters here will criticize these ideas to no end, but the fundamental concepts of global support and bettering the common arab man are necessary.

Point by point:

1) Appeasement. Not an option in my book; it's been tried and failed. Did not work in the ME, did not work with Korea and still wont work in the ME.

2) How about the rest of the world gets on board and starts villifying the Arab leaders? I am not of "the US is the root of all evil" crowd. If the Europeans and others cannot see the need to address the problem of radical extremism (in this case Muslims) and terrorism, they do so at their own peril. Obviously, the Europeans are in the appeasement camp; ask them how it's working out for them! The UN is one of the most useless and inefficient organizations on the planet (it must be hard to be innefficiently useless!). As for making amends to the rest of the world...screw em all. We owe them nothing! IMHO, your being part of the "blame the US first crowd" is strike one.

3) Turning on our allies is not an option. Besides, I thought it was our support of Israel that brought all this on? How do you reconcile non-interference of duly elected despotic governments (like Hamas) yet espouse the interference with the Saudi government? How about we place the blame where it belongs...on the terrorists.

4) I am in full support of bettering the plight of the Arab man...IF ... a big if... the Arab governments expend as much or more effort in doing the same. The simple fact is they do not and will not. A nations infrastructure is the responsibility of that nations government (local and national). Are you telling me that the Arab governments are too stupid or too ineffective or too poor? With few exceptions, they have plenty of money; they choose to spend it on trying to destroy the West instead of improving their countries. I am vehemently opposed to rewarding terrorism.

Your position that the UN can solve all is strike two in my book.

In truth, your idealism shows. Utopian ideals only work in Utopia. Everywhere else they will make you very dead.

I suppose that those why are overcome because of their Utopian ideals have the satisfaction of knowing they have the moral high ground. Try to remember that when some Muslim is sawing off your head with a butter knife. I am sure YOU will feel he is justified and blame Bush, the US, poverty, illiteracy, Saudi Arabia and just about anything but the bastard who is hacking your head off.