|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
The “Islamic Problem” | from Fish - Saturday, August 05, 2006
accessed 1621 times Is there an answer to “the Islamic problem”, peaceful or otherwise? I’ve been brooding over the latest round of violence in the world, namely the war in Lebanon. The annoying thing about this most recent outbreak of genocide is that there seems to be little purpose involved. What exactly does either side hope to gain from it? Publicity in the short term, and in the long, the further banalization of the world, particularly the west, seem to be the only likely results. Still more troubling, while both sides have been condemned, no one seems to have a better idea of what to do. Is the situation so hopeless that the only solution is to wait until mutual exhaustion brings the fight to a temporary end? It would seem so.
It’s at times like these that one wonders “how did it come to this?” One could point out the intolerance in both societies as an obvious cause. I feel however, that this war is but the entrée of an increasingly macabre banquet in the form of the 21st century. While the middle east has long been a trouble spot, what strikes me as more universal about this war is the general feeling of apathy. In this new century every one must fend for themselves.
Where is the UN? Where are the cries of outrage? Where is Hegel’s “world spirit”?
They are all dead, and to paraphrase Niche, “we have killed them”. After three plus years of constant violence in Iraq, it’s almost a relief to see children being slaughtered somewhere else. It spices up the news a bit. While it still “those fanatics” that are the bad guys, at least the stage has a different name. It makes me as an American feel good that hey, we aren’t the only ones engaged in a “dark, dishonorable, dirty war”.
The snowball is rolling, and is picking up speed. If we are engaged in massacres in one country, how can we blame others for following suit? Who’s next on the menu? So long as they are Muslims, they’re fair game. If we, the West, with our universal pretensions promote this policy, who will end it? Everyone else is caught up in their own petty regional interests. As for the Arab world, their age old penchant for internecine squabbles continues to be their undoing.
Is there an answer to “the Islamic problem”, peaceful or otherwise?
They feel threatened by their lack of power and influence, relative to the west. To further add to their discomfort, we stab them repeatedly with the jagged knife of Israel. They respond by terrorizing us, in an effort to destroy our precious “way of life”. (and end Israel’s support) We in turn retaliate by bombing or invading them, supposedly to protect said ‘precious’ “way of life”. (and god's ‘precious’ people)
The problem with both of our approaches is that neither of them can possibly succeed. Terrorizing us is highly unlikely to affect our freedom, unless we allow it to. (example: US TV stations refusal to air cartoon images of Mohammed). Our ‘glorious’ “way of life” is our own, short of an Islamic invasion the only way they can win is through our own cowardice, idiocy, or both.
If “the fanatics” approach is ill conceived, then ours is sheer lunacy. The only even slightly effective method to control a culturally hostile society is the Roman way, in this case, decimation. Genocide. Kill them, kill them all! Because if even one is left to breed, we all know what his children will want to be in the future: Pilots.
This dish is of course unpalatable to such a civilized society as the west. If this course was taken, we would no longer be the west (in any meaningful way) by the time we were thru. So we do what we always do: we take halfassed measures. We invade Iraq, and then claim to promote “democracy”. (instead of simply killing any dissenters outright) The majority of us clamor for a war, and then act shocked when our men start dieing. We are scandalized at the thought of our troops engaging in torture, as if we expect the enemy to simply cooperate, because “we are right”.
We have become too squeamish to act, while remaining too arrogant to mind our own business. Thus we blunder into wars that we are not prepared to win. If we continue in this vein the sun may soon set on our civilization. What is more, we will deserve it.
So again, is there a solution? If we could go back in time, and perhaps refrain from infecting the Arab world with the virus that is Israel, then perhaps there would be no problem at all. We would still get their oil. Traditionally the Islamic world has done brisk trade with the west. There would be no reason for this to change.
Of course, this is wishful thinking. We have infected them with a virus that continues to agitate them. Further, we have bombed, humiliated, and invaded them. We have, bizarrely, allied ourselves with the most extreme among them. We have done nearly everything that could conceivably be done to make matters worse. Is there a way out?
I would like to hear any (intelligent) thoughts on the matter. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from SeanSwede
Saturday, September 16, 2006 - 23:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
I believe that the western worlds want to keep going on with their plans for the future and they feel that everyone else needs to tag along to make things possible. They do not want to have renegades apart from their program.
The whole motto seems to be "get with our program or we will force you to"
China and Russia do not seem to have any second thoughts on the whole Islamic problem thing. Hell, they want to also protect their intressts too. In a way, I get the feeling that China is more or less forced to comply and turn a blind eye with what is happening in the Islamic world, wars etc.
You see China has become more and more involved with the technology industry and taking over alot of productions. I mean I lost my job a year ago to the chinese when I was working at Ericsson Radio Systems building G3 senders and receivers for mobilephones. The whole production got moved over to Guangzo, China. We even had to teach these people who came from China to eventually take over OUR jobs. Boohuu! :(
Russia has always had a thorn in their flesh about the whole Islam deal. So they don`t give a damn either, they sooner would welcome it.
All in all as I see it, the religious world has been toned down immensly. The world seems to realise that they are doing just fine without this religion industry business. They wanna crawl out from under the stone age rubble and on to newer and better concepts.
As long as America, China, Russia and the EU are on the war path for change, NOTHING can stop them this time. They may have failed back in the crusader days. But DAMN they aren`t wielding knives and sticks nowadays are they?
I am all for the world moving forwards. Religion is that of our ancient past and it has never really made a positive difference in the world anyways to begin with, except for psychological and physical pain and manipulation. What about the buddists? We don`t hear much from them at all, do we? Now I wonder why? Do they have a controlling religion like Christianity and Islam does. HELL NO! Hey now don`t get me wrong but I am not trying to promote Buddism at all, it was just a thought.
The west has come very far from their religious past. It hardly exists these days at least its no where near the intensity of how it was for about 50 years ago and earlier.
I assume that the west, having ignored the east for so long, have realised their mistake. The east have been able to brood in their own ancient ways up to now, so now the modern world has to step across the treshhold between the 2 worlds and try to make some changes.
Ok, yes the whole oil deal. Well, maybe I will be putting my foot in my mouth somewhat by adding to this next subject about the oil war but perhaps the Muslim world may have never botherd us in the first place had we never botherd them for their oil.
I think that the west are worried sick that if their oil reserves were to dry up, they would be at the mercy of the east. And who knows what would come along with that...Islam maybe? I am not about to bow down my knees to them...or anyone for that matter. Here in Sweden the whole new concept is to try to be independent from oil. We are building scores of plants to produce ethane and methane so that we will be self sufficient and independent from the rest of the world and their oil wars. People have started to buy ethane driven cars now instead. The sales statistics for these cars have sky rocketed this year. I suggest that you all do the same. Its probably the only definite way to end the oil wars for good, is when everyone aquires bio-fueld vehicles instead. Best of all, it saves our environment too.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Fish
Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 09:45
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Well, as it seems that no one has come up with a ‘reasonable’ solution to the afore said "Islamic Problem", particularly with regards to the Middle East, I shall offer mine.
One of the main problems I see regarding the West's interaction with Islam is that as I mentioned above, they simply do not have the stomach for the measures that would be necessary to control a hostile populace. Thus they adopt measures that neither appease the Muslims, nor subjugate them.
There is however another culture that historically has had far greater success in dealing with Islam. I refer of course to eastern orthodoxy. This being Byzantium and its heirs.
Whether wrong or right, Russia and its dependents have consistently shown that they have little or no qualms about using the most draconian measures on Muslims. (see Kosovo)
Simply put, if the West seeks to contain the growing menace of Islam (rather than reason with it, by say chastising Israel) it should increase its support of orthodoxy in the region. It should ally itself as closely as possible with Russia, and give Russia a free hand to do as it pleases with its Muslim neighbors (possibly even encourage them to take a more aggressive stance). If this were done, the repercussions (terrorism) in Russia’s major cities would force it to involve itself yet further in the middle east. Rather than use US troops to occupy a Muslim country, Russian troops could be used instead. (With generous US/EU funding, logistical support, armaments etc...)
While the world is scandalized at the news of American troops committing relatively minor atrocities such as humiliation, low key torture, rape and the murdering of small groups of civilians, Russian troops doing any of the above would hardly make the news. Furthermore, as Russia has fairly recent experience managing totalitarian regimes, they would be all the more suited for the task.
This would, naturally, be only the first half of the solution. While Russia may have no moral qualms about subjugating heathens, historically they have shown a distinct lack of long term efficiency. A long term Russian occupation of a completely hostile Muslim country would end in the annihilation of either the Russian forces, or the local populace.(most likely the former) In any case, copious amounts of vodka would have to be flown in.
To prevent this, the west, particularly the US, would play ‘good cop’ to Russia’s ‘bad’. This was somewhat effective in the past. Given the choice between crazed bloodthirsty orthodox drunkards, and obese yet slightly more ‘civilized’ UN (US/EU) ‘peacekeepers’, Muslim leaders would likely opt for the later. The West would then set up authoritarian puppet governments. Enforced secularization would follow, which would be made easier by the absence of mosques and imams, courtesy of the orthodox troops.
The end result would be a collection of neutered, somewhat socialistic, totalitarian, Kemalised formerly Islamic states. (see Turkey) Either that, or there would be no Islamic states left.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | from Fish
Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 09:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, as it seems that no one has come up with a ‘reasonable’ solution to the afore said "Islamic Problem", particularly with regards to the Middle East, I shall offer mine.
One of the main problems I see regarding the West's interaction with Islam is that as I mentioned above, they simply do not have the stomach for the measures that would be necessary to control a hostile populace. Thus they adopt measures that neither appease the Muslims, nor subjugate them.
There is however another culture that historically has had far greater success in dealing with Islam. I refer of course to eastern orthodoxy, to Byzantium and its heirs.
Whether wrong or right, Russia and its dependents have consistently shown that they have little or no qualms about using the most draconian measures on Muslims. (see Kosovo)
Simply put, if the West seeks to contain the growing menace of Islam (rather than reason with it, by say chastising Israel) it should simply increase its support of orthodoxy in the region. It should ally itself as closely as possible with Russia, and give Russia a free had to do as it pleases with its Muslim neighbors (possibly even encourage them to take a more aggressive stance). If this were done, the repercussions (terrorism) in Russia’s major cities would force it to involve itself yet further in the middle east. Rather than use US troops to occupy a Muslim country, Russian troops could be used instead. (With generous US/EU funding, logistical support, armaments etc...)
While the world is scandalized at the news of American troops committing relatively minor atrocities such as humiliation, low key torture, rape and the murdering of small groups of civilians, Russian troops doing any of the above would hardly make the news. Furthermore, as Russia has fairly recent experience managing totalitarian regimes, they would be all the more suited for the task.
This would, naturally, be only the first half of the solution. While Russia may have no moral qualms subjugating heathens, historically they have shown a distinct lack of long term efficiency. A long term Russian occupation of a completely hostile Muslim country would end in the annihilation of either the Russian forces, or the local populace.(most likely the former) In any case, copious amounts of vodka would have to be flown in.
To prevent this, the west, particularly the US, would play ‘good cop’ to Russians ‘bad’. This was somewhat effective in the past. Given the choice between crazed bloodthirsty orthodox drunkards, and obese yet slightly more ‘civilized’ UN (US/EU) ‘peacekeepers’, Muslim leaders would likely opt for the later. The West would then set up authoritarian puppet governments. Enforced secularization would follow, which would be made easier by the absence of mosques and imams, courtesy of the orthodox troops.
The end result would be a collection of neutered, somewhat socialistic, totalitarian, Kemalised formerly Islamic states. (see turkey) Either that, or there would be no Islamic states left.
(reply to this comment)
|  From AnnaH
Sunday, August 20, 2006, 12:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Exile
Excerpt from "Let Russia Solve Iraq." Issue #241, 29 JUN 2006.
You don't hear much about Chechnya these days, do you? Not the way you hear about Iraq, not even close. That's because out of a prewar population of 1.3 million, today Chechnya only has about 300,000 people left. That's just the number to the right of the dot in 1.3. If I was one of the guys on the right side of that decimal, I'd be pretty quiet too, for a long, long time.
"Hey, what about human rights?" we can hear you squeal.
That's an excellent point and a fine question. To which Russia is ready to answer with its own question: "What about your fucking gas, huh? Do you still want it? Huh?"
Then the West'll go, "No, wait-wait-wait, we didn't - we just meant, you know, we're concerned, but it's not like, heh-heh, you know?"
"No, we don't know," says Russia. Then Russia gets all Joe Pesci like and goes, "You said 'human rights.' You said it, you motherfucker. What the fuck is so human rights-y about your country without natural gas, huh? What the fuck, please enlighten me, you fuck! I've got my finger on the fucking off switch at Transneft. Just bleat one more fucking time, you fuck, and I swear I'll turn it off!"
"Yeah, yeah, we're done, we swear!"
"Good, now get the fuck out of my face. You motherfucking mutt."
And with that, the Russian Special Forces will enter Iraq. And the Americans will step aside with all their little "coalition" playfriends. And when the Russians are through cleaning up the mess, and they drive America home in its stationwagon back from occupation practice, we guarantee that in the new Russia-controlled occupied-Iraq, every Iraqi who survives will be a very light sleeper for the rest of his or her life.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from 'The new pearl harbour'
Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 06:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
The New Pearl Harbor
Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration
and 9/11
Updated Edition with a New Afterword
by David Ray Griffin
Foreword by Richard Falk
This second edition contains a 30-page Afterword with additional material on the alleged hijackers, controlled demolition of the WTC, Sibel Edmonds, and the 9/11 Commission, plus a discussion of whether Standard Operating Procedures had been changed in June 2001.
"It will be painful, and disturbing, to turn the pages of this thoughtful and meticulously researched book. But turn we must. For we owe the truth to those who died, and nothing less." — Colleen Kelly, sister of Bill Kelly, Jr., who was killed in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on 9/11, and Co-Founder of September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows.
More Reviews>>
Click for full cover
From a skeptical vantage-point, but also taking to heart the classic idea that those who benefit from a crime ought to at least be investigated, Griffin, an eminent philosopher and theologian, brings together an account of the national tragedy that is far more logical than the one we've been asked to believe. Gathering stories from the mainstream press, reports from other countries, the work of other researchers, and the contradictory words of members of the Bush administration themselves, Griffin presents a case that leaves very little doubt that the attacks of 9/11 need to be further investigated.
The disturbing questions emerge from every part of the story, from every angle, until it is impossible not to seriously doubt the official story, and suspect its architects of enormous deception. Long a teacher of ethics and systematic theology, Griffin writes with compelling and passionate logic, urging readers to draw their own conclusions from the evidence outlined. The New Pearl Harbor rings with the conviction that it is possible, even today, to search for the truth; it is a stirring call that we demand a real investigation into what happened on 9/11.
David Ray Griffin has been a professor of philosophy of religion and theology at the Claremont School of Theology in California for over 30 years. He is co-director of the Center for Process Studies there and the author or editor of over 20 books.
http://www.interlinkbooks.com/BooksN/New_Pearl_Harbor.html
See for yourself here;Never been shown on tv
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5946593973848835726
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Rain Child
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 05:34
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1219280.ece
(reply to this comment)
| from norway
Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 18:28
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Send all Israelis back to the states,where they belong. Put Bush in jail for going to war(illegally), trying to steal Iraqs oil. Weapons of mass distruction my ass! That would be a good start...
(reply to this comment)
| From cool8pack
Saturday, August 19, 2006, 13:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
DON'T SLIP THIS LEFTY IDEOLOGY IN, WE PAY FOR EVERY BARRELL OF OIL THAT COMES OUT OF THE MID-EAST, IF IT WASN'T FOR WESTERN, PROBABLY JEWISH KNOW-HOW AND TECHNOLOGY ALL OF ARABY WOULD PROBABLY BE STILL SITTING AROUND IN POOLS OF IT FILLING UP THEIR LAMPS TO KEEP THEIR TENTS WARM IN THE DESERT NITES. IF THE SAUDIS HADN'T HAD BEEN SO BLOODY SELFISH WITH THEIR BILLIONS AND THE BIN LADEN'S WEALTH INVESTED IN AMERICA TOPS 1/5 OF THE US ECONOMY AND HELPED THEIR POOR ARAB/PALESTINIAN NEIGHBOURS THE WHOLE ISREALI/PALESTINIAN ISSUE WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLVED YEARS AGO. THE PROBELM WITH TERRORISM DID NOT START WITH BUSH OR BLAIRE, THEY ARE A SICK FUNDAMENTALIST ELITIST MINORITY BORNE OUT OF A NON-PEACEFUL RELIGION THAT IS EVANGELISTIC IN NATURE THAT WANTS TO REVERT THE WHOLE WORLD BACK TO SHARIA LAW, ABOLISH HUMAN RIGHTS & DEMOCRACY. LISTEN IF THE TABLES WERE TURNED AND THE MILITARY SUPERIORITY WERE IN THEIR HANDS HOW LONG DO YOU THINK YOU'D BE AROUND. THEY HATE OUR WAY OF LIFE, FREEDOMS AND FREEDOM OF THOT TO DISCOVER, AND ISREAL SHARES A BORDER ON EVERY SIDE WITH THESE NUTTERS, FANATICS AND FUNDAMENTALISTS. LISTEN MATE DON'T KNOCK THE JEWS THEY HAVE CONTRIBUTED MORE TO SCIENCE THE ARTS, ECONOMICS THAN ANY OTHER MINORITY PEOPLES, TOOK IT ON THE CHIN FROM HITLER NOW HAMAS AND HEZBOLAH AND STILL CAME OUT ON TOP. THINK SOME U STILL HAVE THIS FAMILY HANG OVER WHEREBY YOU HAVE AN INBORN MECHANISM TO HATE JEWS DEVELOPED BY FAMILY GROUP SPEAK, TAKE A WIDER LOOK.(reply to this comment) |
| | from SeanSwede
Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 09:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
sure. I ve got an idea to solve the problem forever. CUT OUT RELIGION FROM THE FACE OF THE PLANET!!
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From AnnaH
Tuesday, August 08, 2006, 12:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't mean to get all JoeH on you, but do you think you could possibly use punctuation? I know you didn't get an education, but this is not an IM chat. You know that some words should be capitalized, at least at the beginning of a sentence. I'm willing to let your lack of apostrophes go for now, but please, try a little.
I know you're still reeling with anti-religious fervor from your newfound knowledge, but I'm gonna clue you in on something that will save you a lot of time and grief. Religion is not what is wrong with people. People are just fucking assholes. Some of these assholes take religion and make themselves better people, and then some take it and make it an excuse to be an asshole. If it wasn't religion they would find something else to use, and if they couldn't find it, they would make it up. Kinda like how David Berg was a pedophile and sex addict, so he justified it by take obscure bible verses and twisting them. That doesn't mean the Bible is the reason why there are pedophiles in the world, or that the lack of the Bible would end pedophilia. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from exister99
Tuesday, August 08, 2006 - 07:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
From the way you all carry on about geopolitics one might think that you grew up in an evil cult where the leader frequently issued drunken, deranged missives about global affairs. Oh wait, that's right, you did.
Fucking move on, people! Human beings will continue to annihilate each other and destroy the planet until there are no humans left. Getting your panties in a wad and "brooding over the latest round of violence" will do nothing to change the savage nature of the human animal or to stem the tide of aggression.
Enjoy life, then die, hopefully not as the result of a rocket strike.
Peace, 'nshit.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from Rain Child
Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 14:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I said before, I just don't know what to do with them.
(Sorry, you did say you wanted intelligent advice, but I have none to give.)
(reply to this comment)
| From Rain Child
Sunday, August 06, 2006, 22:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
Okay, so just cause I don't have any intelligent thoughts on this doesn't mean I don't have any intelligent friends. I asked my friend L. here's what he reckons.
"They're all Semites in the genetic sense and from the same root so perhaps its a case of sibling rivalry like the English and Irish.
My view is this: There is no clear cut answer. Whatever happens someone will lose out. If I had a solution I'd be doing Kofi Annan's job at the United Nations.
My opinion is this: That piece of land is historically Jewish although all faiths live in it. The Jews were shoved out and then persecuted in every place they settled. The culmination of this was the nazi death camps. After World War Two I simply cannot blame them for saying "Sod this, lets go home and build an f-ing great fence to keep them all out".
If a recognised and civilised nation such as Germany shoved my family into a furnace with a pitchfork I'd be a bit suspicious of folks for ever more.
I understand that the Palestinians had taken over the land and some were displaced when the Jews came home.
I have to be harsh here and say that all the Palestinians did with the land was sit on their bony asses and get sunburnt. The Jews came home and in 50 years they made the desert flower, they built modern infrastructure such as docks, ports,agriculture,tourism, industry, airports,educational facilities,hospitals, roads and communications.
It would be wrong in these politically-correct days to critisise an African or Asian businessman who built a factory on a bit of derelict wasteland in England but its apparently ok to critisise the Jews for doing the same on their own historical location.
In the past (during border negotiations) the Palestinians have turned down an offer when it was 95% in their favour. That seems unreasonable then the Israelis have conceeded over 50% of their claims. Seems to me like the Jews will play ball politically to sort things out but the Arabs just don't want to. Generally speaking (although clearly not true for every person) the Israelis seem to be educated,modern, reasonable and forward thinking. The Palestinians seem to be uneducated medieval peasants that easily get stirred up by rabble rousing trouble makers and don't do a fat lot to help themselves.
Hezbullah and Hammas are terrorist organisations and are recognised in the United Nations as such. Their rockets are aimed but unguided a bit like the nazi V-1 and V-2 rockets that fell on London during the last war. This means that you just aim them into a population centre and hope for as much carnage as you can get. They are not capable of being guided onto a specific target such as an Israeli command-post or artillery battery. This is indiscriminate butchery with no objective other than to cause terror and to crack Israeli civilian moral. The Germans did this during their Blitzkrieg days in Poland and Britain. At least when Britain and America carpet bombed Germany the objective was to destroy the nazi capability to wage war. There was a strategic objective.
Hammas has entered Israel and kidnapped Israeli soldiers. The next step for them will probably be to enter Israel and kidnap civilians. We've seen from the beheading videos from Iraq what the consequence of this are.
Palestine is also being supplied with hardware from Syria and Iran. These are both nations publically committed to the eradication of Israel. The Jews saw this in 1930s Germany, some alive today were there and lived it, they won't take this sh*t anymore.
The biggest problem is the one-eyed monster that sits in the corner of our living rooms. The war is piped live to our houses and given a spin by TV producers with their own agenda. Same with the newspapers. We see Palestinian kids being killed by Israeli ordnance. This is all we see.
We don't see that a Palestinian rocket battery had been deliberately positioned near a school in order for propaganda. No, its all too emotive for that when children are crying and bleeding on a screen in your house.
We don't see that the Israelis do not just lob rockets and bombs in the general direction of Palestinian forces.
We only see a laser-guided bomb from an IAF F-16 that landed smack in the middle of a Hammas weapon dump. The weapon dump is usually and deliberately next to a market or hospital or school. When the Israelis are being fired upon, you can't blame them for knocking out the sites from which the Palestinians are launching their attacks.
In addition, Israel has sent special forces units into Hammas held territory to kill terrorist leaders in order to stop all this and stop the killing of civilians.
I think this will only end when Hammas and Hezzbullah are totally annhilated. I think Israel has to do this. Just because Hammas has support doesn't mean they're right. The nazis had 60,000,000 people willing to wear the Swastika. Their numbers did not make their philosophy right.
If Iran or Syria get dragged in then we're all in trouble and the situation changes. Then this will become truly global. Funny that Armaggedon is in Israel and will be the place of the final battle between good and evil, isn't it? My ultimate impression is this and it over-rides any other feeling on the matter: If we as a species have come this far, achieved so much and have created so much good, how the hell can we look ourselves in the eye when we let leaders who do these things represent us? Simplistic but true nevertheless.Anyhow, thats my take. Whats yours?"
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From steam
Monday, August 07, 2006, 10:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is much that I agree with in this post and much that I have stated. Especially about how the Israelis have worked much harder to build a good place out of the desert than those before them. However there is much naivete, and many statements that to put it nicely, have no factual support. The idea that the Israeli's are targeting only military targets is crazy. They are bombing Beirut which has never had a rocket fired from it to Israel, because they don't have the range. The history of their interactions with the Palestinians shows a definite belief in, and willingness to carry out "collective punishment". Israel does not use "smart bombs" in any quantity. Just as over 90% of bombs dropped by the US in both gulf wars were not "smart bombs". They are not significantly more accurate that the rockets coming at them. The Israelis launched the war and massive bombing of civilians in response to the kidnapping of two soldiers, not a terrorist attack. So the response was far more accurately a terrorist attack than the trigger. Many palestinians are uneducated, and the way they were raised has much to do with the difficulties of their circumstances. You come off as very racist in your characterisations and I wish to remind you that being raised in a cult can leave many uneducated as well. Should we dismiss such an individual with derision, or instead consider the totality of their experiences etc? The fact that you attribute your views to your intelligent friend, shows a bit of a lazy approach to drawing such sweeping conclusions on such important matters. Anyhow, that's my take. What's yours?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Rain Child
Tuesday, August 08, 2006, 02:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting. Are you saying you don't believe I didn't write this, or that I'm lazy to put forward someone else's views instead of formulating my own? To be honest, I find everything pretty hard to understand, and that's why I ask people. I don't know much about rockets, etc. That particular friend is a pilot, so I assume he knows more than I do. But I think you're right on with what you've said. It also seems to me that even having come from a cult, I can often be more objective than my friends because I've had to erase all my preconcieved ideas and start fresh. The down side is I'm often too much of an open book. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Actually
Monday, August 07, 2006, 11:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
I thought this comment was intelligent and well thought through and almost precisely what i believe myself. Of course i wish there were a peaceful solution to the problem, but when it comes down to it there is not.
In the end I believe that they will fight each other regardless of world opinion and i have really stopped caring. Why the fuck does everyone these days feel the need to condem/support every little thing that happens on the other side of the world. Your caring about it will NOT make a difference and people would be much better off if they stopped moaning about world politics and the poor starving babies in africa and started trying to fix things where they live. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Rain Child
Monday, August 07, 2006, 14:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
For clarity's sake, the above comment was not made by me, but by my friend L. I understand where he's coming from and respect that he's older than I and never had his thoughts controlled by growing up in a cult, but I do find his statement that the palestinians would purposely build a school next to a weapons factory for propaganda purposes ludicrous. Does anyone know if there's any truth to that?(reply to this comment) |
| | From steam
Tuesday, August 08, 2006, 08:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally believe the statement was your friends I was not implying you were lying. As far as building next to civilians to use them as sheilds, in many cases I am sure that has occured especially with Hezbollah in Lebanon, (although at some point I would guess some Palestinians have done it as well). The fact is though that the targeting in the war has been indiscriminate. The Israelis have been bombing sections of Beirut that are Christian and have never supported Hezbollah (although they are begining to do so since these bombings). As far as your friend not having had his sources controlled by a cult. The important thing is whether he makes an effort to read or otherwise inform himself of facts and arguments in contradiction of his current views, and seeks to be as unbaised as possible when considering them. Or if he surrounds himself with comfortable reinforcements of his viewpoint excluding that which might be uncomfortable.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from
Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 12:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan provided a catalyst for Brzezinski's radical Islam project. Under the pretext of education, Afghan children were propagandized and transformed into a generation of radicalized Muslims. This project was exposed in an article in the Washington Post:
In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation.
THE PRIMERS, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system's core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code. (Stephens & Ottaway, no pagination)
Various governmental and educational organizations were involved in this project:
Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID [Agency for International Development] grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university's education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994. (Stephens & Ottaway, no pagination)
The material circulated by this campaign was replete with violent images and language:
Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders. (Stephens & Ottaway, no pagination)
According to the article's authors, the material shocked and disturbed some: "An aid worker in the region reviewed an unrevised 100-page book and counted 43 pages containing violent images or passages" (Stephens & Ottaway, no pagination). The article elaborates:
One page from the texts of that period shows a resistance fighter with a bandolier and a Kalashnikov slung from his shoulder. The soldier's head is missing. Above the soldier is a verse from the Koran. Below is a Pashtu tribute to the mujaheddin [sic], who are described as obedient to Allah. Such men will sacrifice their wealth and life itself to impose Islamic law on the government, the text says. (Stephens & Ottaway, no pagination)
After Afghanistan's population was sufficiently radicalized, the county was used as a base of operations for the dissemination of this violent form of Islam to the rest of the Arab world. Ahmed Rashid pointed this out in his article for Foreign Affairs magazine entitled "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism." In the article, Rashid writes:
With the active encouragement of the CIA and Pakistan's ISI, who wanted to turn the Afghan jihad into a global war waged by all Muslim states against the Soviet Union, some 35,000 Muslim radicals from 40 Islamic countries joined Afghanistan's fight between 1982 and 1992. Tens of thousands more came to study in Pakistani madrasahs. Eventually more than 100,000 foreign Muslim radicals were directly influenced by the Afghan jihad. (No pagination)
Thanks to Brzezinski, USAID, CIA, ISI, and others among America's establishment, this violent form of Islam spread from Afghanistan and reached much of the Middle East. The results of Lebanon's May 2005 national parliamentary elections makes it abundantly clear that this violent form of Islam had infected the Lebanese people. The radical Islamic group Hezbollah won the largest number of representatives in it history ("Hezbollah and the 'Cedar Revolution'," Wikipedia, no pagination). The mixture of plebiscitary democracy and radical Islam reached its most disastrous results in July 2005 when Hezbollah was asked to join Lebanon's government. Israel's military moves in Lebanon are the results of Hezbollah kidnapping two Israeli soldiers.
Manipulation of the political landscape of the Middle East has resulted in a dangerous enemy raising its head in Lebanon. Perhaps that was the plan from the very beginning. The elite are not stupid. They fully realize that you cannot radicalize a population and then promote the idea of free elections for that population. Such a move would lead to the creation of an enemy that would have to be dealt with somewhere down the line. Brzezinski knows this. The CIA knows this. Most importantly, the neoconservatives who have brought about the current Israeli-Lebanon conflict stage in the global war with radical Islam know this.
Whether one speaks about the neoconservatives or some other blueblood faction, it must be understood that the elite as a whole subscribes to what can only be described as a foreign policy of cynicism. This method has been used by the oligarchs for decades, if not centuries. First, the elite destabilize and overthrow a target nation's government. Second, the hidden manipulators facilitate the rise of dictatorial and potential dangerous regime to replace the target nation's former government. Third and final, the elite instigate hostility from the new dictatorial regime which leads to a war that acts as a pretext for a political agenda. The political agenda almost always includes the promotion of an oligarchic model of world government. World domination has always been the final prize in the eyes of the elite. In the words of Henry Kissinger: "Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac."
We seem to be seeing a variation of the foreign policy of cynicism being employed in the case of Lebanon. The neocons encourage plebiscitary democracy in Lebanon through the Cedar Revolution. This manifestation of the global democratic revolution helped Hezbollah climb the Lebanese political ladder and become a potential enemy. The neocons hope this will provide a pretext to continue the American Empire's march across the Middle East. A discussion General Wesley Clark had with a Pentagon senior military staff officer confirms that the neocons have intended to militarily occupy the Middle East for quite some time:
As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there was a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia, and Sudan. (130)
The neocon encouraged rise of Hezbollah to a place of political prominence in Lebanon has provided the pretext for the American Empire to continue its military globe trotting. The end result will be the neoconservative faction realizing their model of world government.
Sources Cited
* "Cedar Revolution." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 19 July 2006
* Clark, Wesley. Winning Modern Wars: Iraq, Terrorism, and the American Empire. New York: Public Affairs, 2003.
* Dobriansky, Paula J. " Remarks on Release of Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2004" 28 February 2005
* Hassan Mohamed. "Who was Rafik Hariri and who was behind his assassination?" Global Research. 14 March 2005.
* "Hezbollah and the 'Cedar Revolution.'" Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 19 July 2006
* "Interview of Zbigniew Brzezinski." Online posting. 15-21 January 1998. Konformist Yahoo Discussion Group. July 2002
* Parry, Robert. "The Hariri Mirage: Lessons Unlearned." Consortium News. 16 June 2006.
* "Paula J. Dobriansky." Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia 22 February 2006
* Rashid, Ahmed. "The Taliban: Exporting Extremism." Foreign Affairs Online. November/December 1999
* Ryn, Claes G. America the Virtuous: The Crisis of Democracy and the Quest for Empire. News Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2003.
* Stephens, Joe and David B. Ottaway. "From the U.S.A., the ABCs of jihad." MSNBC. 2002
About the author
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from
Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 11:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
As Things Fall Apart, Lie and Lie Again
Nothing to Fear But Bush Himself
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
Suppose you are the party responsible for invading a country under totally false pretenses. Suppose you had totally unrealistic expectations about the consequences of your gratuitous aggression.
What do you do when, instead of being greeted with flowers, you find your army is tied down by insurgents and you have no face-saving way to get out of the morass? If you are the moronic Bush administration, you blame someone else.
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Cheney and Bush blame Syria and Iran for the troubles that they brought upon themselves. The Iraqi insurgency, say the Five Morons, is the fault of Syria and Iran.
Here is Rumsfeld excusing himself for his dismal failures in Iraq: "Partly it's [the insurgency] a function of what the Syrians and the Iranians are doing."
You see, the facts that the US invaded Iraq on false pretenses, killed and maimed tens of thousands of Iraqis, shot down women and children in the streets, blew up Iraqis' homes, hospitals and mosques, cut Iraqis off from vital services such as water and electricity, destroyed the institutions of civil society, left half the population without means of livelihood, filled up prisons with people picked up off the streets and then tortured and humiliated them for fun and games are not facts that explain why there is an insurgency. These facts are just descriptions of collateral damage associated with America "bringing democracy to Iraq."
The insurgency, according to the Five Morons, is because Iraq and Iran won't close their borders, thus letting in "terrorists" who are responsible for the insurgency. Some might think that this accusation is an example of the pot calling the kettle black coming as it does from the US, a country that has not only proven itself incapable of closing its own borders but also has demonstrated no respect whatsoever for the borders of other countries.
The Bush administration, which already held the world record as the most deluded government in history, has now taken denial to unprecedented highs by blaming Syria and Iran for its "Iraqi problem." Why didn't Americans realize that it is dangerous to put a buffoon in charge of the US government who hasn't a clue about the world around him, what he is doing or the consequences of his actions?
Why is Secretary of State Rice trying to set Iran up for UN sanctions--which the US can manipulate to justify invading another Muslim country--when the US has proven to the world that it cannot occupy Baghdad, much less Iraq?
Are Iran and Syria going to quake in their boots after witnessing the success of a few thousand insurgents in tying down 8 US divisions? The bulk of the US force in Iraq is engaged in protecting its own bases and supply lines. It was all the generals could do to scrape up 10,000 Marines for their pointless assault on Fallujah.
What is the point of the Bush administration's bellicosity when it has been conclusively demonstrated that the US has insufficient troops to successfully occupy Iraq, much less Syria and Iran? The American people should be scared to death that they have put in power such deluded people.
Are Americans going to fall for the same set of WMD lies a second time? Are Americans going to deliver up their sons, and perhaps daughters as well, to be drafted and sent to the Middle East to be killed and maimed for no American cause?
The US Treasury is empty. The once "almighty" dollar is tottering. The US military is stretched to the breaking point. Former allies look askance at America. Hatred of America has reached an all time high.
The Bush administration must bring its policies in line with its means before it leads our country into greater disaster. The Bush administration and its deluded sycophants must stop poking fun at "reality-based" experts and listen to a reality-based message.
There is no possibility of the US imposing its will on the Muslim world. By its behavior the Bush administration is confirming Osama bin Laden's propaganda and breeding more terrorists. Much better to address the causes of Muslim discontent--America's enabling of the Israeli government's mistreatment and dispossession of the Palestinians, and America's export of "culture" that glorifies the sexual promiscuity of women.
It does not serve America for Bush to impose Ariel Sharon's agenda on the Middle East. Bush's insane policy is producing rising anger that endangers Israel and America's puppet governments in Egypt, Jordan, and Pakistan along with the Saudi regime. Ironically, this is recognized by Egypt's Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, who was unable to refrain from pointing out that Bush has managed to create a Shi'ite crescent from Iran to Lebanon.
What, King Abdullah wonders, will be the next unintended consequence of the moronic administration that the American people in their superior wisdom and virtue have seen fit to empower in Washington. "If our aim is to win against terrorism, we can't afford more instability in the area," warned the king prior to the ill-fated US invasion of Iraq. "It's the potential Armageddon of Iraq that worries all of us."
It should worry Americans, too.
(reply to this comment)
| From Rain Child
Sunday, August 06, 2006, 20:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
We all like to call Bush stupid, it makes us feel better. But the reality is he's bound by economic and political pressure and being the President of The Free World (Ha ha according to ignorant Americans) does not mean that he makes his own decisions. He cannot go against the people who put him in power. His course is pretty much set, he has to follow in his father's footsteps, and manage to look righteous about it. He doesn't start with a blank sheet and think objectively about these things. The only thing he thinks about is how he's going to sell it to the American public, whether to make an issue or try and slip it past them. The American Public are the ones who are actually stupid, watching things like Hannity & Colmes & what's that guy who says, "The Buck Stops Here"? I bet even Bush doesn't believe the shit they spin.
Anyway, stop giving Bush so much credit! He's just the name and the face. The whole country of the United States needs contol of the Middle East both due to the threat of terrorism, and they need the oil.
(Plus it gives them something to do with their trigger-happy, sassy-mouthed 19 year-olds who would otherwise get up to no good)(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From roughneck
Monday, August 07, 2006, 16:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Finding it hard to come up with a caustic ad hominem reply, are we? Does it wreck your fun a little? A lot? Do tell!
Seriously though, why can't you argue the topic itself instead of going on about the personal flaws of the bloke who dared copy and paste? -At least whoever did it was good enough to name their source(s) n' all.
/Haven't posted anonymously
//In this thread at least(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from
Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 11:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://www.counterpunch.org/shahid3.html
Big problem is that christians see this all played out on their screens and suport it. They need the bblical prophecy to come true, so they don't make any moves to stop it, heck, they welcome it and can't wait for the lords coming.
(reply to this comment)
| from cool8pack
Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 11:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
multiculterism is a one way road and the contries which send the most immigrants to the west and britain with cultures which seem to be hostile to ours dont allow multiculturism in thier countries like pakistan which has since its creation to satisfy the demands of the muslims of india with threat of civil war has vertually eradicated the budhist and hidu populations of pakistan which on its creation amounted to approx 10% off the population and now is down to less than 1% they have won gold in ethnic cleansing and got away with it,the excuse of allowing mass immigration to britain was we needed the workers thats fine if you just allow them in for work on temporary work permits but if they come on a permannent basis than bring their dependants and those dependents are then taking from the ewlfare state ,housing ,schools,health care social services you are actually adding to the problem and paying for the privelage,statistics also prove that second generation asian s make up approx 40% of people in prison these are the ones caught and prosecuted and 40% on unemployment benefit so you are also adding to problems of crime and the dole you also increase social problems because of a restance to intergartion beacuse of the inherited animosity between the christian west and the muslim east which has its routes in battles and rivalries over past centuries than add to that the more sinsiter extreme end of the muslim s leading to calls for mass war and suicide bombings and the message within their religion to islamitise the world 9 out of ten conflicts in the world seem to be between muslim countires or muslim and non muslim countries ,and now you have unstable regmes which is a religous dictatorship capable of doing anything trying to get their hands on nuclear weapons and boasting they will use them ,i say while the west has the upperhand we must use it beacause if the rolls were reversed they would show us who was boss just look how minorities are treated in the muslim world the chinese in malaysia,or christians in pakistan or christians in egypt who buy the way are the native people of egypt and were invaded occupied and taken over by the arabs ,arabs historically being one off the worst culprits ofor colonising and are still trying to arabise black africa with the ethnic cleanising in darfur and southern regions osf sudan israel is one of the few times in history wher the native people of a country have managed to reestablish their originall home;and but as we can see the arabs dont like it mkea you think when the arabs have land twice the size of america and vast oil wealth yet they must have this pocket of land half the size of wales in thier dreams ironically isreal is one of the most multiculturist countries in the world with black asian and european races. i say get rid of em all, send 'em back to their tribal, prehistoric societies and barbaric religion when little or no human right exist. anti-anti christs? u gotta be joking, i'd much prefer to like in a dominant
jewish democratic society than in any of those muslims stagnant hell holes anyday.
(reply to this comment)
| From
Monday, August 07, 2006, 11:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is something that irritates the fuck out of me!
Would somebody tell me why Muslim immigrants come to the UK, refuse to adapt to our culture... expect to be pandered and handled gently and want us all to appreciate thier great and wonderful culture when they do not do the same in their own country. Granted, not many Brittons would want to emigrate to a muslim state BUT i think i am righ in saying that they are not exactly tolerant themselves. Why do they think they should get special treatment?
And WHY do we give it to them?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Korpesco
Tuesday, August 08, 2006, 11:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes unfortunately tolerance and multiculturalism is a one-way street. Britain, the seeding ground of democracy human rights and civil liberties, is locked into such a downward spiral of moral relativism, decadence, self loathing and sentimentality it is setting itself up for cultural immolation.
In clashes of values and cultures there are always those who value appeasement. In Hitlers day, in Communisms time and now with Islam fundamentalism. Appeasment never works, and unless you are willing to dilute your values, culture and Identity you have to fight for them.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from AndyH
Sunday, August 06, 2006 - 09:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good stuff. You may want to consider changing you terms a bit. You're sounding a bit like some other folks, who found a "final solution" to another "problem".
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | From lisa
Monday, August 07, 2006, 16:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
I personally think they should all be treated like children that can't play nicely. Have the entire region taken off them and made into one big country. Though in order for that to work you'd probably have to get rid of everyone over the age 15 and then start a system of re-indoctrination ie: 'No,Hamid just becuase we want their toy doesn't mean we can shoot them.' Its sounds harsh but their probably all going to die with the fighting anyway,at least this way the next generation has a chance. (reply to this comment) |
| |
|
|
|
|
(
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]