muslims PART 2

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You may be surprised to hear it, but I can understand where these extremes come from. Much in the same way that I can understand where they come from on the other side.

Just as I would favour eliminating islamic extremism by addressing with genuine grievances, I would say that Western extremism can only be eliminated by addressing the perceived threats posed by such nutters.

Unfortunately, at the moment, the two are locked in a positive feedback loop. Who has the vision and leadership to break it?

Maybe the next president.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

You may be surprised to hear it, but I can understand where these extremes come from. Much in the same way that I can understand where they come from on the other side.

I'm not surprised to hear you find their views rather understandable- I actually rather expected you would. They have some very genuine grievances, very logical reasons for turning to jihad, unhappily for us! I find it understandable too.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Just as I would favour eliminating islamic extremism by addressing with genuine grievances, I would say that Western extremism can only be eliminated by addressing the perceived threats posed by such nutters.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Unfortunately, at the moment, the two are locked in a positive feedback loop. Who has the vision and leadership to break it?

I don't think anyone will. My view is that the situation between the Muslim and Western civilizations will only continue to deteriorate.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Maybe the next president.

I think it will take generations to recover from the mess Bush has made of things. And thats assuming rare leadership among more then just the US. Theres just been so much damage done.

[Lief Erikson]

President Bush did what he had to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strong evidence was indicating that Iraq had WMDs and was dodging the weapons inspectors, as is proven by the fact that an overwhelming majority in Congress voted in favor of war. So there was strong evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Congress isn't a bunch of idiots- deceiving them all would have been unbelievably difficult.

President Bush genuinely believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and so did almost all the other highly professional and well trained leaders of our country. So President Bush made the only rational decision he had available to him at the time.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by Spock

Then too there's the ever popular phrase, adapted for the post 9-11 period:

"kill them all and let Allah sort them out"


just pointing out the extremes in thought, feeling, word and deed

Quote please?

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

I think it will take generations to recover from the mess Bush has made of things. And thats assuming rare leadership among more then just the US. Theres just been so much damage done.

What Clinton left behind was a mess, you really can't blame Bush ALL the way...


tell me this isn't hilarious...

Cinderella, according to document 2, named one of her sons Maddas, which is Saddam spelt backwards. Saddam, who obviously knew his Cinderella lore, was considered among other Cinderella scholars as “too radical”. All the women in his harem, for instance, were cinderellian witches. Some very good sources suggest Saddam’s lineage goes back to Cinderella…

[Falagar]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

President Bush did what he had to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strong evidence was indicating that Iraq had WMDs and was dodging the weapons inspectors, as is proven by the fact that an overwhelming majority in Congress voted in favor of war. So there was strong evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Congress isn't a bunch of idiots- deceiving them all would have been unbelievably difficult.

President Bush genuinely believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and so did almost all the other highly professional and well trained leaders of our country. So President Bush made the only rational decision he had available to him at the time.

I never got the impression that the evidence was 'overwhelming', at least it was pretty disputed here in Norway. Though I don't doubt there were many who believed it.

[Spock]

This bears repeating.

Originally Posted by Spock

At the siege of Vienna in 1683 Islam seemed poised to overrun Christian Europe. We are in a new phase of a very old war.

a recent Swedish immigrant to the United States, who gave a first-hand account of the effects of unfettered Muslim immigration on Swedish culture.

The day before that we featured translations of Norwegian articles about the expanding “no-go zones” — enclaves of immigrant lawlessness — in Oslo.

Sweden is farther down the road towards Eurabia, but Norway is moving along fast enough in the same direction. The HonestThinking post expressed the fear that parts of Oslo would soon become like the Swedish city Malmö, which is notorious for its violent immigrant strongholds.

[Falagar]

There are problems around here, yes, and there are a few places in Oslo that got immigrant majority - but no serious clashes. Never heard of any lawlessness. The good people at HonestThinking are free to make any claims they wants, as far as I've gathered the site is considered a bit reactionary and its criticism of e.g. the Norwegian statistical bureau has, as far as I know, been pretty solidly refuted.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

President Bush did what he had to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Strong evidence was indicating that Iraq had WMDs and was dodging the weapons inspectors, as is proven by the fact that an overwhelming majority in Congress voted in favor of war. So there was strong evidence that Iraq had WMDs. Congress isn't a bunch of idiots- deceiving them all would have been unbelievably difficult.

President Bush genuinely believed there were WMDs in Iraq, and so did almost all the other highly professional and well trained leaders of our country. So President Bush made the only rational decision he had available to him at the time.

Lief it goes far beyond the invasion of Afghanistan and even the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately for us, most of the world disagrees that the Iraq invasion was necessary and just saying well most of the American government was for it isn’t going to make them any more understanding I would think. And my point is that the damage done by Bush’s many decisions (largely foreign policy Im talking about here) is going to take a long long time to recover from. For it is the rest of the world that has lost great respect for us and/or hates us more then ever now because of his policy decisions. This translates into MORE terrorism and less ability to effect change around the world on very important issues. You realize theres a good chance that the current extremist president in Iran wouldn’t be in power now if Bush hadn’t been reelected? And that the kook in North Korea may not have gone to the extent of getting nukes if he didn’t fear Bush was going to do to them what he did to Iraq (“axis of evil” anyone?). And lets not even go to his policy regarding Israel and Palastine and countless other things.

[Spock]

Boy that's a rather gloomy analysis.

[inked]

Want some gloom, try the Jerusalem POST on Russian involvement in Hizbollah and Syria - now, today, and currently:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Bush is not responsible for all the angst in the world today, unfortunately. There are plenty of angst-makers and something less than myopia will reveal them.

[Spock]

Ahhh, agnst-makers, now THAT I can relate to. Thanks for the links.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

Bush is not responsible for all the angst in the world today, unfortunately.

I agree. He's just one of the major contributors.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Lief it goes far beyond the invasion of Afghanistan and even the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately for us, most of the world disagrees that the Iraq invasion was necessary and just saying well most of the American government was for it isn’t going to make them any more understanding I would think. And my point is that the damage done by Bush’s many decisions (largely foreign policy Im talking about here) is going to take a long long time to recover from. For it is the rest of the world that has lost great respect for us and/or hates us more then ever now because of his policy decisions. This translates into MORE terrorism and less ability to effect change around the world on very important issues.

I agree that this is what it will translate to and is already translating to. But I don't think there were ever any good options. Our best intelligence said that Saddam was developing WMDs. So from our point of view at that time, that was what he was doing. And President Bush had to decide what to do from the perspective that Saddam was developing WMDs, and there weren't many options. He wasn't cooperating with the UN inspectors, and France had outright said that it would veto any proposal that the Bush Administration made in the Security Council. So the UN was a closed avenue, and that didn't leave many options.

And as regards Afghanistan, our only option aside from attacking was allowing bin Laden to continue striking from Afghan bases.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

You realize theres a good chance that the current extremist president in Iran wouldn’t be in power now if Bush hadn’t been reelected?

Granted that extremism is growing as a consequence of our presence in Iraq. Like I said, I don't think we ever had any good options.

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And that the kook in North Korea may not have gone to the extent of getting nukes if he didn’t fear Bush was going to do to them what he did to Iraq (“axis of evil” anyone?).

Surely you don't buy that?

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

And lets not even go to his policy regarding Israel and Palastine and countless other things.

As regards his policy on Israel and Palestine, I have to agree with you.

Originally Posted by Falagar

I never got the impression that the evidence was 'overwhelming', at least it was pretty disputed here in Norway. Though I don't doubt there were many who believed it.

The citizens of Norway would not have had access to high level US intelligence information. That kind of intelligence includes many secrets. Congress would have and did have access to it, however, and they are professionals.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Surely you don't buy that?

Well why is it so hard to believe that a maniacal paranoid out of touch dictator would think nuclear weapons would be his only hope at stemming the destruction of his regime since the US already showed it would invade Iraq and Afghanistan AND it listed North Korea on the very same list of "evil" countries along with Iraq. Perhaps in his mind he thought with that cowboy in there its just a matter of time before they try to pull something on us and there goes my cognac connections! Quick! Get missile technology! Make a bomb!

[Lief Erikson]

They were developing these weapons all the way back in the 1980s, near the NK town of Yongbyon. Hans Blix and nuclear inspectors went to check out the site in the early 1990s and Blix suspected at that time that they were secretly developing nuclear weapons. Secretary of State James Baker has said that North Korea had a crude nuclear device even during his time in office.

North Korea's nuclear weapons development is a process that has been going on for decades, not just in the last few years.

[Lief Erikson]

I've thought about the point you raised about the poverty in the Middle East, Gaffer, and researched it since we last talked here. And my findings have indicated to me that poverty in most places really isn't the source of radicalism. It's a natural one for us Westerners to think of, seeing as we come from a capitalist mindset, but it doesn't jive with the facts. I'll give you more on this perhaps tonight . . . or maybe tomorrow or the day after. I'm in a school time crunch at the moment, so I can't present you my case immediately.

[hectorberlioz]

Well Bin Laden certainly wasn't impoverished...

My dad pointed out once that most of the radicals seemed to have been educated and/or wealthy. The leaders, anyways.

[hectorberlioz]

Originally Posted by Insidious Rex

Well why is it so hard to believe that a maniacal paranoid out of touch dictator would think nuclear weapons would be his only hope at stemming the destruction of his regime since the US already showed it would invade Iraq and Afghanistan AND it listed North Korea on the very same list of "evil" countries along with Iraq. Perhaps in his mind he thought with that cowboy in there its just a matter of time before they try to pull something on us and there goes my cognac connections! Quick! Get missile technology! Make a bomb!

There seems to be a game mindset, I have noticed it (not that thats very hard).

However, if you noticed; countries with whacks had SOME kind of nuclear or other mass weapons program BEFORE Bush. It has been going on for quite awhile, and that is why blaming it on Bush just doesn't cut the mustard. Clinton sold stuff to China, and I don't think it's that hard of a leap to figure out that N.Korea and China have something goin' on. No one person can be blamed.

I don't think Iraq was about WMD per se, nor about oil. I think Bush, after 9/11, realized that stuff had to change in the middle-east, or America would undergo more attacks or worse. Taking over Iraq had a lot of pros; to the rest of the Islamic world, ousting Saddam and the Taliban (in Afghanistan), was no small thing. This scared the heck out of the nuclear-developing tyrants. Of course, in the long run it has backfired on us...