Yes...Muslims want all non-Muslims dead

[no1tovote4]

some Muslims want us all dead does not mean ALL Muslims do. If all Muslims did, we'd be fighting a world war right now.

Mariner

P.S. No1ToVote4--As for the aluminum tubes, it's not opinion. It's on record that these were the primary "hard evidence" for Iraq's possession of nuclear warheads that Bush refused to share with us before the war. Bush has not denied that, because he can't--there wasn't any other hard evidence (except for the uranium question, which the CIA also informed the administration, before Powell or Rice made their cases to the public, was false). The NYT piece I referred to was investigative not opinion. It was based on CIA and Energy Dept. officials' statements and documents that the Times was able to obtain. It was about 4 full, top to bottom pages of details that are quite damning to the Bush case that they really, really thought Iraq could hit us with an ICBM. Did you have the chance to read it? But this isn't the subject of this thread, so I'd be happy to drop it here.

It was an investigative report based on the opinions of those in the CIA and
Energy Dept. They gave their opinion and it was reported. It was the opinion of those officials that those tubes were not to be used for Nuclear weapons, there were others in both departments that had a differing opinion. Any investigative report based on opinions of those it is reporting on can only give an opinion as a result. Reporting other's opinions does not make a factual news story, it makes an opinion piece.

 

[Mariner]

and my parents all sorts of names in the past few posts for suggesting that most Muslims do not side with terrorists and that we've paid inadequate attention to the "hearts and minds" side of keeping ourselves safe.

Take a look at today's Boston Globe, which has an article on the about-face among increasing numbers of Iraq war hawks who are now arguing that our presence in Iraq is decreasing our safety for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Some of these official include people who helped plan and execute the war to date. Even the (conservative) Cato institute is quoted:

"The occupation is counter-productive in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and actually increases support for Osama bin Laden in Muslim communities not previously disposed to support his radical interpretation os Islam."

Mariner.

 

[Patriot]

some Muslims want us all dead does not mean ALL Muslims do. If all Muslims did, we'd be fighting a world war right now.

Mariner

Where is your proof that they all dont? I mean what drugs are you smoking to think we aren't in a World War? Oh yeah the hallucinatory type that says we are fighting a conventional war.

 

[Patriot]

and my parents all sorts of names in the past few posts for suggesting that most Muslims do not side with terrorists and that we've paid inadequate attention to the "hearts and minds" side of keeping ourselves safe.

Take a look at today's Boston Globe, which has an article on the about-face among increasing numbers of Iraq war hawks who are now arguing that our presence in Iraq is decreasing our safety for exactly the reasons I mentioned. Some of these official include people who helped plan and execute the war to date. Even the (conservative) Cato institute is quoted:

"The occupation is counter-productive in the fight against radical Islamic terrorists and actually increases support for Osama bin Laden in Muslim communities not previously disposed to support his radical interpretation os Islam."


Mariner.

Well since you love and trust them so much I suggest you go live among them say Iran maybe? That is a pretty safe place for you to practice your tolerant attitude.

 

[eric]

some Muslims want us all dead does not mean ALL Muslims do. If all Muslims did, we'd be fighting a world war right now.

No I am quite certain that there are many good Muslims walking this planet. My problem is that the Muslim community displays very little self-regulation as a whole. You commonly see Muslims sticking up for one another even if they personally believe the other party to be wrong. I have heard it said that one Muslim should give shelter and comfort to another even if the other should be a criminal. As long as this attitude or lack of self-regulation continues, it becomes hard to separate the good from the bad.

 

[Mariner]

When an official makes a comment "on the record" it's different from when the same person writes an op-ed piece. You ignored the fact that the Times piece was also based on documents that supported the officials' comments, and placed everything on a very clear time line. The upshot of it all was that the administration was informed that the "yellow cake from Niger" thing was not usable nuclear fuel prior to Bush's claiming that it was in his State of the Union Address, and secondly that the aluminum tube information had been provided to the administration prior to Condoleeza Rice making her comment that "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. concerning supposed "hard evidence" of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

But again, I don't need to get distracted by arguments about this--historians will sort it all out, and I believe it will eventually be clear to everyone that Bush's team planned an Iraqi invasion long before the supposed pieces of actual evidence of need for war surfaced (Paul Wolfowitz had been advocating it for decades). So let's not talk about it more here--I'll accept that most of you disagree with me (but also that you seem not to have read the actual Times piece, which might change your minds about a few things).

Eric--I notice that many people here seem to have very high expectations of Muslims' empathy for us, but don't give the slightest bit of empathy back. Isn't that asking a bit much? Historically, Muslims can just as easily see Christianity as wanting to destroy them as the other way around. Remember the Crusades, which involved killing as many Muslims as one could get one's hands on? Saladin is still a talked-about hero for driving back one of the Crusades. And at that time, the barbarians were the Christians--Arab learning and knowledge far exceeded that of the West for several hundred years in the Dark Ages. The fourth Crusade, which destroyed the largest library of the ancient world, was perhaps the most barbaric intellectual act of the past 2000 years, and set back European progress by maybe a century or two.

That's why I fear that anti-Muslim rhetoric of the type many of you display here feeds the us vs. them fires and makes us less safe. Nothing plays better into Al Qaeda's hands than for Americans to begin to hate Muslims or paint them all with a broad brush as terrorists. And besides, I thought hatred was un-Christian.

Just because a few American soldiers acted badly doesn't make us all bad, right? So just because a few Muslims are terrorists doesn't make them all bad either. If you want to argue the latter, you'd better be prepared for them to argue the former--and then we're all in very deep trouble.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

When an official makes a comment "on the record" it's different from when the same person writes an op-ed piece. You ignored the fact that the Times piece was also based on documents that supported the officials' comments, and placed everything on a very clear time line. The upshot of it all was that the administration was informed that the "yellow cake from Niger" thing was not usable nuclear fuel prior to Bush's claiming that it was in his State of the Union Address, and secondly that the aluminum tube information had been provided to the administration prior to Condoleeza Rice making her comment that "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. concerning supposed "hard evidence" of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.

But again, I don't need to get distracted by arguments about this--historians will sort it all out, and I believe it will eventually be clear to everyone that Bush's team planned an Iraqi invasion long before the supposed pieces of actual evidence of need for war surfaced (Paul Wolfowitz had been advocating it for decades). So let's not talk about it more here--I'll accept that most of you disagree with me (but also that you seem not to have read the actual Times piece, which might change your minds about a few things).

Eric--I notice that many people here seem to have very high expectations of Muslims' empathy for us, but don't give the slightest bit of empathy back. Isn't that asking a bit much? Historically, Muslims can just as easily see Christianity as wanting to destroy them as the other way around. Remember the Crusades, which involved killing as many Muslims as one could get one's hands on? Saladin is still a talked-about hero for driving back one of the Crusades. And at that time, the barbarians were the Christians--Arab learning and knowledge far exceeded that of the West for several hundred years in the Dark Ages. The fourth Crusade, which destroyed the largest library of the ancient world, was perhaps the most barbaric intellectual act of the past 2000 years, and set back European progress by maybe a century or two.

That's why I fear that anti-Muslim rhetoric of the type many of you display here feeds the us vs. them fires and makes us less safe. Nothing plays better into Al Qaeda's hands than for Americans to begin to hate Muslims or paint them all with a broad brush as terrorists. And besides, I thought hatred was un-Christian.

Just because a few American soldiers acted badly doesn't make us all bad, right? So just because a few Muslims are terrorists doesn't make them all bad either. If you want to argue the latter, you'd better be prepared for them to argue the former--and then we're all in very deep trouble.

Mariner.

Mariner, in reality, WMD was only one facet of the administration's argument. You know that.

us vs. them mentality? The us vs. them mentality is the appropriate individual and cultural reaction to another culture focused exclusively on your destruction, as evidenced by the purposeful creation of a generation of brainwashed, suicidal killers, with the overtly state ideological goal of destroying you.

You bring up the crusades? You think the modern muslim societies should be held to medieval standards? Why, because they aren't as "advanced"?


And again, where is the voice of moderate islam? Even in our nation, where are the moderate american muslims denouncing the tactics of their homeland regimes?

 

[Mariner]

The argument that Iraq presented an imminent risk of attacking us with a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon was the heart of the administration's case for invasion. Subtract that argument and the invasion wouldn't have happened. After WMDs weren't found, other arguments gained prominence--more than 20 of them by one count.

Re: the crusades. My point was that Muslims remember the Crusades much better than we do (we lost, and losers tend to forget), and it colors their perception of Christian countries.

Re: a culture of people devoted to destroying us. I think you have to be very careful to distinguish. Al Qaeda is devoted to destroying us, and therefore worthy of any amount of us vs. them antipathy you like. Iraq, however, was among the more secular Muslim nations. The people there aren't predisposed to destroying us by any means. Many are happy we're there (especially the Kurds and Shi'ites who were oppressed under Saddam). Others are furious (especially those who have lost family members who many never have volunteered to die for our cause, and Sunnis, whom Saddam kept in power by force). These are all entirely different groups of people from extreme terrorists like Hamas or Al Qaeda, and many of these people, though they can't easily say it out loud, are horrified by the terrorists' hijacking of their religion (believe me--I know--I talk to such Muslims almost daily).

Re: where are Muslim moderates. I agree with you--I wish there were more Muslims who could see that, even though it may look that way, this is not a repeat Crusade. At best it's an attempt to install a better gov't in Iraq. At worst, it's securing our oil supply and healing an old father/son issue in the Bush family. In neither case is it a bunch of Christians deciding it would be fun to kill Muslims, but it's hard for many Muslims not to focus on our mistakes there, and not to feel some solidarity with "their" people.

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

The argument that Iraq presented an imminent risk of attacking us with a biological, chemical, or nuclear weapon was the heart of the administration's case for invasion. Subtract that argument and the invasion wouldn't have happened. After WMDs weren't found, other arguments gained prominence--more than 20 of them by one count.

Re: the crusades. My point was that Muslims remember the Crusades much better than we do (we lost, and losers tend to forget), and it colors their perception of Christian countries.

Re: a culture of people devoted to destroying us. I think you have to be very careful to distinguish. Al Qaeda is devoted to destroying us, and therefore worthy of any amount of us vs. them antipathy you like. Iraq, however, was among the more secular Muslim nations. The people there aren't predisposed to destroying us by any means. Many are happy we're there (especially the Kurds and Shi'ites who were oppressed under Saddam). Others are furious (especially those who have lost family members who many never have volunteered to die for our cause, and Sunnis, whom Saddam kept in power by force). These are all entirely different groups of people from extreme terrorists like Hamas or Al Qaeda, and many of these people, though they can't easily say it out loud, are horrified by the terrorists' hijacking of their religion (believe me--I know--I talk to such Muslims almost daily).

Re: where are Muslim moderates. I agree with you--I wish there were more Muslims who could see that, even though it may look that way, this is not a repeat Crusade. At best it's an attempt to install a better gov't in Iraq. At worst, it's securing our oil supply and healing an old father/son issue in the Bush family. In neither case is it a bunch of Christians deciding it would be fun to kill Muslims, but it's hard for many Muslims not to focus on our mistakes there, and not to feel some solidarity with "their" people.

Mariner.

Again I ask, where does one draw the line? At what point do we say that something that happened "x" years ago is no longer relevant to the issue at hand?

While the Muslims may well remember the Crusades, are we as westerners to remember the rise of the Arab nations prior to the Crusades and all the acts of violence perpetrated by Islam (yes even back then) which gave Pope Urban the excuse he needed to send out the first Crusade?

If there was no 9/11 attack on the US the invasion would not have happened, if Saddam had not invaded Kuwait the invasion would not have happened, If the Crusades had not occurred the invasion would not have happened, If Western Europe had converted to Islam instead of Christianity the invasion would not have happened...on and on. If the Muslims practiced tolerance and tried to understand the Western nations, the invasion would not have happened. I am sick and tired of folks placing the blame entirely on the side of the US. It takes to sides to have confrontation and it takes at least two sides to make peace.

Even within the Muslim community, where is the outrage at the actions of the terrorists that make a point of attacking MUSLIMS? The fact that there is little outcry condemning the terrorists weakens the argument that not all Muslims want to kill anyone not of Islam. In fact, from my personal perspective, the "moderate Muslim" is by far in the minority.

 

[Mariner]

Where does "one" draw the line... well, wherever "one" feels like it, and a Muslim has every right to look back at an unbroken cultural heritage of nearly 1500 years and base deep beliefs and attitudes on that history.

I agree with you and others here that everyone would be much better off if Muslims in general weren't prone to see this sort of intervention as Crusade-like. But of course that is one of the factors "one" should take into account before deciding to invade--realizing that being welcomed with flowers is made less likely by Muslims' general perceptions of the West.

If you'd like to change their minds, then you're with me in advocating that we pay as much attention to the "hearts and minds" campaign as we do to the military campaign--and that's where I think some apologies and policy changes would be helpful.

I'm no expert, but I believereasons we don't see much moderate Muslim outrage are:

1. Since church and state are mixed in most Muslim countries, Muslims look to their church leaders (the famous imans and ayatollahs) to make decisions for them and speak for them. This is one of the great challenges to establishing democracies there.

2. Muslims naturally focus on the downsides of our interventions while we naturally focus on the upside.

3. I know we feel we're a "great" country with a "great" culture, but to many traditional societies we're a decadent society, obsessed with violence (our number one export being arms) and sex (our number two export being violent and sexual movies, video games, and other entertainment). Some Muslims might fear cultural takeover more than they hate their own dictators. (And don't start telling me that red state values would solve this problem since whether red states actually have the values they talk up is in open question, Texas having the highest teen birth rate in the country, and Massachusetts the lowest divorce rate, and all of us watching the same trashy TV shows in almost equal numbers.)

4. I think the biggest problem is Muslim shame. Here is a people who had an enormous, powerful, and intellectual empire back when Christian Europe was the back woods. Now their empire is in shambles, and I don't think it's easy to give up the pride--honor and pride are big in their culture.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Where does "one" draw the line... well, wherever "one" feels like it, and a Muslim has every right to look back at an unbroken cultural heritage of nearly 1500 years and base deep beliefs and attitudes on that history.

I agree with you and others here that everyone would be much better off if Muslims in general weren't prone to see this sort of intervention as Crusade-like. But of course that is one of the factors "one" should take into account before deciding to invade--realizing that being welcomed with flowers is made less likely by Muslims' general perceptions of the West.

Prone to see it as crusade-like? You act like these people live in nations with a free press. How stupid are you?

If you'd like to change their minds, then you're with me in advocating that we pay as much attention to the "hearts and minds" campaign as we do to the military campaign--and that's where I think some apologies and policy changes would be helpful.

How do you change their minds when they live in a state controlled information vacuum?

No apologies are forthcoming.

I'm no expert, but I believereasons we don't see much moderate Muslim outrage are:

1. Since church and state are mixed in most Muslim countries, Muslims look to their church leaders (the famous imans and ayatollahs) to make decisions for them and speak for them. This is one of the great challenges to establishing democracies there.

Nothing of value is ever easy, except your mom.

2. Muslims naturally focus on the downsides of our interventions while we naturally focus on the upside.

Most of our media (libs) focus on the downside as well.

3. I know we feel we're a "great" country with a "great" culture, but to many traditional societies we're a decadent society, obsessed with violence (our number one export being arms) and sex (our number two export being violent and sexual movies, video games, and other entertainment). Some Muslims might fear cultural takeover more than they hate their own dictators. (And don't start telling me that red state values would solve this problem since whether red states actually have the values they talk up is in open question, Texas having the highest teen birth rate in the country, and Massachusetts the lowest divorce rate, and all of us watching the same trashy TV shows in almost equal numbers.)

And the same people who feel this way about us treat women like property, and don't believe in freedom or tolerance, or free speech. Which society do you think is better?

4. I think the biggest problem is Muslim shame. Here is a people who had an enormous, powerful, and intellectual empire back when Christian Europe was the back woods. Now their empire is in shambles, and I don't think it's easy to give up the pride--honor and pride are big in their culture.

Mariner.

Awww. Poor muslims. Guess what? Things change. They are stuck in the reverie of their medieval grandeur, true, but they need to get over it. Their ideas are imcompatable with pluralistic societies and the modern world.

 

[Bonnie]

Where does "one" draw the line... well, wherever "one" feels like it, and a Muslim has every right to look back at an unbroken cultural heritage of nearly 1500 years and base deep beliefs and attitudes on that history.

I agree with you and others here that everyone would be much better off if Muslims in general weren't prone to see this sort of intervention as Crusade-like. But of course that is one of the factors "one" should take into account before deciding to invade--realizing that being welcomed with flowers is made less likely by Muslims' general perceptions of the West. I think the most productive things are being done like our troops building new schools, new shopping facilities, new roads, efficient ways of exporting their oil so they can be self sufficient, ect..........This takes time but in the long run goes much farther to the cause than encounter groups that tell them we feel their pain.

If you'd like to change their minds, then you're with me in advocating that we pay as much attention to the "hearts and minds" campaign as we do to the military campaign--and that's where I think some apologies and policy changes would be helpful.

I'm no expert, but I believereasons we don't see much moderate Muslim outrage are:

1. Since church and state are mixed in most Muslim countries, Muslims look to their church leaders (the famous imans and ayatollahs) to make decisions for them and speak for them. This is one of the great challenges to establishing democracies there.

2. Muslims naturally focus on the downsides of our interventions while we naturally focus on the upside.

3. I know we feel we're a "great" country with a "great" culture, but to many traditional societies we're a decadent society, obsessed with violence (our number one export being arms) and sex (our number two export being violent and sexual movies, video games, and other entertainment). Some Muslims might fear cultural takeover more than they hate their own dictators. (And don't start telling me that red state values would solve this problem since whether red states actually have the values they talk up is in open question, Texas having the highest teen birth rate in the country, and Massachusetts the lowest divorce rate, and all of us watching the same trashy TV shows in almost equal numbers.)

4. I think the biggest problem is Muslim shame. Here is a people who had an enormous, powerful, and intellectual empire back when Christian Europe was the back woods. Now their empire is in shambles, and I don't think it's easy to give up the pride--honor and pride are big in their culture.

Mariner.

Mariner, no one is talking about importing Baywatch to Muslims as an excuse to hate Western Culture, they hate us because they have been told to hate us and no other message has been getting in. America is not looking to Westernize the Middle East only to make them independent thinkers that have freedom, prosperity, and a stake in their own destiny, that in and of itself is the way to win their hearts and minds, if you think dropping pamplets about how great we are is going to help, well rest assured that is being done as well.

Building roads, schools, and secure ways to extract and export their oil, goes farther than having encounter groups that tell them we feel their pain....

 

[Mariner]

I'm not sure why you think it's not true. Ask any of my relatives in India--they're disgusted by American TV, and wish they could find ways to keep it out. Except for the youngest generation, who can't get enough. It's easy for traditional cultures to see us as purveyors of weapons (of mass destruction) and sleazy morals. But if we want to do something about it, we'd better start at home, since we seeem to love this stuff as much as anyone, and in the red states just as much as the blue.

As for the cultural obstacles to starting a democracy, remember that there was a 1000 year history (since the Magna Carta) of respect for law in the West. Contrast that with, say, Saudi Arabia, where you have a tribal system that would have remained marginal to Western civilization had it not suddenly found itself rich beyond imagining thanks to the discovery of oil beneath its sands. There's no social history there that helps them know what to do with such wealth, so they distribute it the old way; hence we have 10s of thousands of Saudi princes and princesses rolling in money while the typical Saudi doesn't work, but also doesn't have access to much education. It's an entirely sick system. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, but we've hardly done a thing about that brutal country (where women are treated as second-class and public beheadings are normal), preferring to invade the easier target, Iraq. I believe it's because we've sold ourselves out via our deficits (they own a trillion or more dollars of the U.S. deficit) and therefore can't speak the truth to them, but of course that's a subject for a different discussion).

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I'm not sure why you think it's not true. Ask any of my relatives in India--they're disgusted by American TV, and wish they could find ways to keep it out. Except for the youngest generation, who can't get enough. It's easy for traditional cultures to see us as purveyors of weapons (of mass destruction) and sleazy morals. But if we want to do something about it, we'd better start at home, since we seeem to love this stuff as much as anyone, and in the red states just as much as the blue.

So, you're basically on the taliban's side.

As for the cultural obstacles to starting a democracy, remember that there was a 1000 year history (since the Magna Carta) of respect for law in the West. Contrast that with, say, Saudi Arabia, where you have a tribal system that would have remained marginal to Western civilization had it not suddenly found itself rich beyond imagining thanks to the discovery of oil beneath its sands. There's no social history there that helps them know what to do with such wealth, so they distribute it the old way; hence we have 10s of thousands of Saudi princes and princesses rolling in money while the typical Saudi doesn't work, but also doesn't have access to much education. It's an entirely sick system. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, but we've hardly done a thing about that brutal country (where women are treated as second-class and public beheadings are normal), preferring to invade the easier target, Iraq. I believe it's because we've sold ourselves out via our deficits (they own a trillion or more dollars of the U.S. deficit) and therefore can't speak the truth to them, but of course that's a subject for a different discussion).

Mariner.

The real reason is because we had tons of legal authority to take out iraq, considering all the defied un sanctions, so we started there. Have you heard of the truth?

 

[Mariner]

Taliban's side. There's a huge difference between fundamentalist intolerance of American values and traditional discomfort with American morality. You really make a specialty of exaggeration, Right Wing.

Who was on the Taliban's side? Well, Bush was--I seem to recall that just before we bombed them we gave them $25 million dollars to help them with their efforts to eliminate poppies. We found their anti-drug values to our liking and overlooked the rest. Remember when Bush had the Taliban leader to the White House before 9/11?

How come you guys are so hard on Iraq and the Iraqis, but you've never yet said a word about Saudi Arabia? A nice regime that beheads people and thwarted our efforts to investigate 9/11. The place Osama bin Laden is from. Where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from. The reason for the existence of Al Qaeda. You guys are thrilled with our detentions at Guantanamo. How come the 24 bin Ladens who were in the country on 9/11 aren't at Guantanamo begin interrogated, or tortured? Oh yeah, I remember, Bush gave them free passes home. Great president. Really makes me feel safe.

Mariner.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Taliban's side. There's a huge difference between fundamentalist intolerance of American values and traditional discomfort with American morality. You really make a specialty of exaggeration, Right Wing.

Who was on the Taliban's side? Well, Bush was--I seem to recall that just before we bombed them we gave them $25 million dollars to help them with their efforts to eliminate poppies. We found their anti-drug values to our liking and overlooked the rest. Remember when Bush had the Taliban leader to the White House before 9/11?

How come you guys are so hard on Iraq and the Iraqis, but you've never yet said a word about Saudi Arabia? A nice regime that beheads people and thwarted our efforts to investigate 9/11. The place Osama bin Laden is from. Where 15 of the 19 hijackers were from. The reason for the existence of Al Qaeda. You guys are thrilled with our detentions at Guantanamo. How come the 24 bin Ladens who were in the country on 9/11 aren't at Guantanamo begin interrogated, or tortured? Oh yeah, I remember, Bush gave them free passes home. Great president. Really makes me feel safe.

Mariner.

It's called diplomacy. You're just looking for things to argue about. Your points are contradictory. One day we're too violent, the next, we're not violent enough for you. You will say anything to criticize republicans.
You know, Indian values are republican values. Just cuz you're slightly brown doesn't mean you should automatically be a democrat.

 

[Bonnie]

I'm not sure why you think it's not true. Ask any of my relatives in India--they're disgusted by American TV, and wish they could find ways to keep it out. Except for the youngest generation, who can't get enough. It's easy for traditional cultures to see us as purveyors of weapons (of mass destruction) and sleazy morals. But if we want to do something about it, we'd better start at home, since we seeem to love this stuff as much as anyone, and in the red states just as much as the blue.

As for the cultural obstacles to starting a democracy, remember that there was a 1000 year history (since the Magna Carta) of respect for law in the West. Contrast that with, say, Saudi Arabia, where you have a tribal system that would have remained marginal to Western civilization had it not suddenly found itself rich beyond imagining thanks to the discovery of oil beneath its sands. There's no social history there that helps them know what to do with such wealth, so they distribute it the old way; hence we have 10s of thousands of Saudi princes and princesses rolling in money while the typical Saudi doesn't work, but also doesn't have access to much education. It's an entirely sick system. Most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, but we've hardly done a thing about that brutal country (where women are treated as second-class and public beheadings are normal), preferring to invade the easier target, Iraq. I believe it's because we've sold ourselves out via our deficits (they own a trillion or more dollars of the U.S. deficit) and therefore can't speak the truth to them, but of course that's a subject for a different discussion).

Mariner.

Well gotta say in regards to the sleazy entertainment, im not one that likes it in any way, and don't seek it out not in the least bit interested, can't speak for others who live in red states.

The notion that Iraq and Saddam was not a brutal country or is somehow better to it's people than Sauidi Arabia mystifies me?? I doubt most countries that treat women as animals would not be in any way acceptable. The Saudi's are more sophisticated and moderate than Iraq, and certainly doesn't come close to Afghanistan or Iraq regarding human atrocities. True the Killers of 9/11 came from Saudi but they trained in Afghanistan and recieved money form Hussein.

 

[Mariner]

No one has yet found a checkbook showing that Hussein supported Al Qaeda. He was a secular dictator who would have no particular reason to support radical Islamicists. In fact, radical Islam could potentially have posed a threat to him. A book by an Iraq expert that I saw last month noted that every country in the region was visited at some point by Al Qaeda--Iraq the least of all of them. So until we have actual evidence of a link, we should stop claiming there was any connection. The only "evidence" I've seen hardly was strong enough to justify 1000 dead American soldiers.

Sure, Iraq was disgusting dictatorship, and I'm glad that Saddam is gone. But Saudi Arabia is nearly equally disgusting. You know the young Saudi princes(ses) party all over Boston? They're a big part of the nightclub scene here. They double park their cars with impunity. They spend thousands, sometimes, in a single night. It's all pretty gross, when you think about the average Saudi, to whom the royal family doesn't give much. We're far too close to these people simply becuase we need their oil and because they own 6% or more of our country and an even larger percentage of our national debt. But the bigger point is that these people DID support Osama bin Laden. They gave him millions of dollars--far more than Saddam could even have afforded to if he wanted to. So what have we done to them? We treated Osama's relatives like royalty, escorted them out of the country, and then gently asked the Saudis, "Would you mind, if you have a moment, looking around to see if you can find some evidence of Osama's whereabouts and cells?" When they obstructed us, why didn't we bomb them? Someone commented that if an election were held in Saudi Arabia today, there is no doubt about who would win: Osama bin Laden.

So basically, you have one country with the most tenuous of links (probably none) to 9/11, and another with the most compelling of links (bin Laden's home country and the place where our bases enraged him into committing 9/11). We invade the first and ignore the second. Why?

Mariner.

 

[CSM]

So basically, you have one country with the most tenuous of links (probably none) to 9/11, and another with the most compelling of links (bin Laden's home country and the place where our bases enraged him into committing 9/11). We invade the first and ignore the second. Why?

Mariner.

Because us Americans just love beating the snot out of poor, defenseless, peace loving, benificent dictators. Obviously the answer is because we are the devil incarnate. No that's not it, the majority of us are just plain stupid; yeah that's it. Actually it's all of the above.

Makes me wonder why all the "right thinking" people bother to stay in this country at all!

 

[Said1]

4. I think the biggest problem is Muslim shame. Here is a people who had an enormous, powerful, and intellectual empire back when Christian Europe was the back woods. Now their empire is in shambles, and I don't think it's easy to give up the pride--honor and pride are big in their culture.

Mariner.

It's been in shambles for 200 years, they have to move forward, not back to a time they will never return to.