they got al-zarqawi

[mburbank]

I'm not all that clear on what motivated the Oklahoma city bombing.

What exactly do you think is different about the Crusades, Kev? Or the Inquisition? Do you believe Western nations have evolved beyond that sort of atrocity for those sorts of reasons? Although I would disagree that would certainly be an arguable position.

Do you think that past genocides and holy wars are irrelevant to the current situation because they aren't happening now and this is? Again, defensible, but I would say the past might be instructive and serves as a decent shield against arogance and superiority, two forces strong in our current foreign policy and not entirely unrelated to the predicament our soldiers are currently in. You go to war with the administration you have.

We actively encouraged and empowered Islamic fundamentalism in a few global hotspots during. Perhaps encouraging religous fundamentalism is a bad idea an we might think about not encouraging it in the future. It may be that encouraging and empowering religous zealots could be counterproductive even if, and this is highly speculative, they are not Muslims.

I'm not saying that we aren't currently fighting Islamic extremism. I'm saying I think we are fighting it blindly, poorly, and in a way which entrenches and supports our enemy, and that this is largely due to arrogance. I don't think it would hurt to remeber that we have not been holier than thou for very long in the march of history and there are no guaranties we will remain holier than thou.

Why does the most extreme for of the Muslim religion currently wield so much power? This is the problem we face right now. I don't think any amount of bombs will change the equation. I'm not convinced that we are doing anything that adresses the question. Here are to schools of rhetoric about what we are doing in Iraq, and I believe neither one.

1.) We are there to control their oil.

2.) We are there to bring Democracy.

I believe we went there for muddy, undefined, multiple and in some cases mutually exclussive reasons. This may have something to do with how muddy, undefined, multiple and sometimes mutually exclussive the results have been.

I think one thread that brought us to the moment we are now in (just one among many, don't get nutty on me) is that we are of God and they are not. Amidst the many reasons we went to war, I think in there, to some degree, far less crazy than what it takes to behead someone, it helped that W is (by his own description) a fundamentalist.

I'm not saying that we brought this on ourselves. Far, far, far, from it. But I think there is a strong cultural tendency to think America has never done anything bad, and if we did do anything bad like say, slavery, or killing all the Indians or putting the Japanese in camps, that's history and it will never happen again and we sure as hell don't do anything like that today and any claims that we do like the School of the Americas or overthrowing elected Democracies or White Phosphorus or torture is just trumped up bullshit or a few bad apples. And if, by some bizarre circumstance we ever did do anything bad, it couldn't have contributed to the bad things that are happening now.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by mburbank

What exactly do you think is different about the Crusades, Kev? Or the Inquisition? Do you believe Western nations have evolved beyond that sort of atrocity for those sorts of reasons? Although I would disagree that would certainly be an arguable position.

It is arguable, but I'll concede you the point.

The problem with this "aww shucks, all religion has its nuts" argument is that it completely overlooks some serious systemic problems not only in islam, but more specifically in the middle East. I won't get into them, because we've been there a million times.

It's my understanding of where other nations, cultures, and religions have been in the past that makes me take Islamic extremism so seriously. This isn't just a small group of crazies causing a lot of problems. And while the actual number of people blowing themselves up and fighting in iraq may be very small, relative to the size of the muslim faith, it doesn't mean there aren't serious cultural and governmental problems that encourage terrorism.

Do you think that past genocides and holy wars are irrelevant to the current situation because they aren't happening now and this is? Again, defensible, but I would say the past might be instructive and serves as a decent shield against arogance and superiority

If you were actually doing this I'd say yes. But what you, and others are actually doing is playing the moral equivalence game. Some look at history and see it as a reason to take action. Others seem to look at it and take it as an excuse for apathy and blind relativism. As if suicide bombing and intolerance were just phases these nations go through, heck, they'll grow out of it. We did!

I mean, how could we POSSIBLE criticize Islamic extremists who killed a reporter this year? WE BOMBED JAPAN! AND WHAT ABOUT VIETNAM, AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS!!? IT WOULD BE SOOO HYPOCRITICAL!!

I feel like I'm perfectly capable of feeling guillt for our own wrong doings, for the wrongs of my country, my religion, and whoever else, while at the same time calling out other evils. My guilt-meter can multi-task.

We actively encouraged and empowered Islamic fundamentalism in a few global hotspots during. Perhaps encouraging religous fundamentalism is a bad idea an we might think about not encouraging it in the future. It may be that encouraging and empowering religous zealots could be counterproductive even if, and this is highly speculative, they are not Muslims.

AND OMG, THE GUILT!!! HELP ME, I'M LIBERAL AND FEEL SHAME!!

Do two wrongs make a right? Is bad policy in the past justification for irresponsible policy today? Do we let radical Islam slide, even at the expense of our security, because we supported it in the past?

I'm not saying that we aren't currently fighting Islamic extremism. I'm saying I think we are fighting it blindly, poorly, and in a way which entrenches and supports our enemy, and that this is largely due to arrogance. I don't think it would hurt to remeber that we have not been holier than thou for very long in the march of history and there are no guaranties we will remain holier than thou.

We have made mistakes. But currently, there is no contest.

I agree with you wholeheartedly however that we are doing some things wrong. I would love to have a different administration take this on, one that's tough on radical Islam, as well as terrorism supporting states, yet with a little bit more tact, a lot more diplomacy, and less with the trigger happy.

I don't like the Bush administration, however I still realize that we have a very clear enemy in this fight.

I think one thread that brought us to the moment we are now in (just one among many, don't get nutty on me) is that we are of God and they are not. Amidst the many reasons we went to war, I think in there, to some degree, far less crazy than what it takes to behead someone, it helped that W is (by his own description) a fundamentalist.

It's his fundamentalism that has helped free a heck of a lot of muslims from a tyrannical regime. I have no problem with presidents using their faith to help them determine their decisions, just as long as they respect the boundaries of faith we have here in America.

Past presidents, some of our greatest, used religious rhetoric to justify everything form wars to economic policies. I don't believe that this was a "Crusade" on Dubya's part.

[ziggytrix]

Originally Posted by KevinTheOmnivore

And hey guys, what about the Crusades and Oklahoma City? it's all the same.

Well, not so much Oklahoma City, but yes on the Crusades.

The OKC bombing was the work of people who made no such claim that God was on their side, as far as I know. But throughout the Crusades BOTH sides ostensibly used religion as an excuse for grabbing all the power and resources they could. I'd say there's a lot of that going on right now, mostly on the part of the Jihadists.

Oops sorry, there I go using that made-up word again. ABC, with all your knowledge of all things Middle Eastern, would you give Fawaz Gerges a call and let him know to stop using it, too.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

But throughout the Crusades BOTH sides ostensibly used religion as an excuse for grabbing all the power and resources they could. I'd say there's a lot of that going on right now, mostly on the part of the Jihadists.

Please be careful with this kind of talk! It may turn out that you offend someone, and we can't have this, it would be terribly hypocritical.

I mean, good lord man, have you forgotten the Spanish Inquisition and Jim Crow laws!!?

We must remain absolutely PARALYZED by the past of the west, Europe, America, and everyone except for Muslims in the Middle East. We can't point fingers here!

[Abcdxxxx]

If we're going to blame all crimes of humanity against the collective religions, can we at least get an aestrisk ?

There are more then a few things I'd love to let Fawaz Gerges know, but that's neither here nor there. JIhadist isn't a made up term, you bozo, it's just a poor choice from a multicultural ectasy dealer like yourself. Take the right pill.

[adept_ninja]

Well one couldnt even call this a jihad because it has not been called by a actual muslim offical. Osama is like a angry martin luther of our time. Islam is going through a reformation right now kind of like the christians did but its a bit different because there is no centralized head of religion like the pope so its complicated. Osama techniqually; according to his relgious doctrines has no authority to call a jihad or issue fatwas. Also to clear shit up there is no "holy war" it is either "just" which is supported by god or "unjust" which is not. jihadist doctrine was modified greatly once the prophet died because he didnt set anyone to take his place, so anyone who knew him personally could say anything that the prophet once said and that would be a law.

[ziggytrix]

Kevin, quit being such a faggot. I have never given a fuck who gets their feelings hurt. There's a world of difference between insulting someone's religion and destroying someone's home and killing their family. If you buy that militant Jihadists commit atrocities just because someone insulted their religion, and for no other reason (oh wait, they HATE freedom - those two reasons then), well you believe whatever the fuck fairy tales help you sleep at night, buddy.

The problem with this "aww shucks, all religion has its nuts" argument is that it completely overlooks some serious systemic problems not only in islam, but more specifically in the middle East. I won't get into them, because we've been there a million times.

First, that ISN'T anyone's argument. The argument is that you are GROSSLY OVERSIMPLIFYING the situation, putting everything into neat little "good" and "evil" boxes, and equating analyzing every possible aspect with being PARALYZED with inaction! I'm not critical of action being taken to combat terrorism. I am critical of stupidly lashing out at the most easily identified target and then patting yourself on the back and thinking that took care of that whole problem. And yesterday, it would actually seem this administration was doing something more than that, or rather letting the public know it can do more than that.

Second, we haven't been there a million times. What better time than now to outline what exactly are the systematic problems in Islam and the Middle East, and what should we, the great and mighty America, do about them?

But why are we talking about this? There is so much more interesting news from yesterday. The fact that a member of Al Qaeda allegedly gave us a tip on finding Zarqawi's location, the effect of his death on the price of oil, or the reported reactions of Iraqis to the news of his death are all more interesting and relevant than PoliSci 101 babble about moral relativism or ABCD's inability to type the word 'terrorist' without hinting that as long are there's Islam, there will be terrorists.


And yet I can hardly wait to get home and read this thread in its entirety.

[Abcdxxxx]

Actually Ziggy, I'm hinting that terrorism will continue to exist until Islam goes through another reformation. There have been periods in history where Islam has shown great tolerance and brotherhood, but this isn't one of them. (I'll add this disclaimer for your pickled brain: terrorism is not an exclusively Muslim sport.)

Stop stereotyping everything I say if you're so worried about generalizing.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Originally Posted by ziggytrix

Kevin, quit being such a faggot.

Calm down now, Ziggy. There are a lot of faggots in this world who would take serious offense to your use of the word faggot, and by making such a sweeping statement, you're implying that all faggots act in the faggy manner I have. That's just not right, and waaaaay too simplistic.


[quote]

The problem with this "aww shucks, all religion has its nuts" argument is that it completely overlooks some serious systemic problems not only in islam, but more specifically in the middle East. I won't get into them, because we've been there a million times.

First, that ISN'T anyone's argument. The argument is that you are GROSSLY OVERSIMPLIFYING the situation, putting everything into neat little "good" and "evil" boxes, and equating analyzing every possible aspect with being PARALYZED with inaction!

Uh, who's the one who CONSTANTLY feels compelled to remind us all that Christians have done bad stuff, too?

And who's making the neat little boxes? "Well see, there's these jihadists, who say they are muslims, but they certainly aren't. And then there's the rest of the muslim world, who loves gum drops and ponies and would never blow up a shopping mall."

I think it's more complicated than that, and if anything, YOU are the one trying to white wash things so as to not "generalize" things.

it's not merely about good vs. evil. But there is a clear enemy. This doesn't mean Islam is the enemy, nor does it mean that one particular nation is the enemy.

Terrorism is a tactic. It is one of the tactics adopted by Islamic fundamentalists.

I'm not critical of action being taken to combat terrorism. I am critical of stupidly lashing out at the most easily identified target and then patting yourself on the back and thinking that took care of that whole problem. And yesterday, it would actually seem this administration was doing something more than that, or rather letting the public know it can do more than that.

Huh? Please clarify this. What is an example of the government lashing out and saying that the problem was solved? When did that happen?

Second, we haven't been there a million times. What better time than now to outline what exactly are the systematic problems in Islam and the Middle East, and what should we, the great and mighty America, do about them?

Maybe you should catch up on your I-Mockery reading then. I'm not wasting a lot of time on this, maybe abc will go off on a rant about it.

Otherwise, I dunno, widespread preaching of hate and intolerance all throughout the Middle East? How are civil rights looking in the Middle East? How about the countries that allow the Koran to dictate their judicial system?

What about state sponsorship of terrorism? You think terrorism is bad, right?

Does this stuff really need to be spelled out for you, I mean, I know you aren't making a lame relativist argument, but it seems like you're setting up to make a really, REALLY lame relativist argument. Please, clear this up for me.

But why are we talking about this? There is so much more interesting news from yesterday. The fact that a member of Al Qaeda allegedly gave us a tip on finding Zarqawi's location, the effect of his death on the price of oil, or the reported reactions of Iraqis to the news of his death are all more interesting and relevant than PoliSci 101 babble about moral relativism or ABCD's inability to type the word 'terrorist' without hinting that as long are there's Islam, there will be terrorists.

Yeah, I mean, we should talk about all of these particular incidents rather than the big picture, right? You say you want to not "simplify" things, and that you'd prefer we not "lash out", but you then call a discussion about the root origins of Islamic terrorism "babble".

Zarqawi acted alone, Bin Laden? just a guy. Sadr? Just your average rebel. Al Qaeda? Simply a club of men with similar interests, like the Elks and Eagle Scouts. Their religion has NOTHING to do with this, not at all! DON'T SAY ISLAM!

And we're already talking about those things, so calm down, chief.

[mburbank]

I was going to say something clever about how you pretending that this was an "Aw shucks" argument was kind of cute, but Ziggy already said it. Maybe you know people who make that argument, but you haven't met any here.

"If you were actually doing this I'd say yes. But what you, and others are actually doing is playing the moral equivalence game. Some look at history and see it as a reason to take action. Others seem to look at it and take it as an excuse for apathy and blind relativism. As if suicide bombing and intolerance were just phases these nations go through, heck, they'll grow out of it. We did!

I mean, how could we POSSIBLE criticize Islamic extremists who killed a reporter this year? WE BOMBED JAPAN! AND WHAT ABOUT VIETNAM, AND THE NATIVE AMERICANS!!? IT WOULD BE SOOO HYPOCRITICAL!! "

1.) Try not to tell me what I'm actually doing. It's extremely rude. Except when I do it to OAA and then it's hillarious. I would never dream of doing it to you. I may cry.
2.) Moral equivalence is not a game or an excuse. It is an acknowledgement that all societies risk falling into evil. It is a call for vigilance, not an excuse for apathy. I personally apologize for the bad moral relativists who frightened you in your youth.
3.) I have yet to hear any countries public presenation that were not ludicrosly hypocritical (forgive my relativism). I am unconcerned with hypocrisy, whicyh I believe is the language of national speech and take with a grain of salt. I do think, though, that the more we insist on believeing any wrong we ever did was an accient or no big deal goes hand in glove with foreign policies that have at very least encouraged tyhe spread of te same extremism we are now fighting. Hind sight is twenty twenty, but until we stop seeing oursleves as vastly superior to the wee brown froggy peoples of the earth, we will make the same mistakes. I think beheading journalists and dropping nuclear weapons on cities are very ugly things, and both should be worked against strenously. However, I think beheading the pilot of the enola gay would not have solved anything and it doesn't look to me like bombing Iraq is working very well as a method of decreasing beheadings.

"I feel like I'm perfectly capable of feeling guillt for our own wrong doings, for the wrongs of my country, my religion, and whoever else, while at the same time calling out other evils. My guilt-meter can multi-task. "

Lovely. Kudos. I think your guilt meter works a lot better than the collective guilt meter of the people instituting our foreign policy, but that's neither here nor there, since guilt and learning are to entirely separate things. HOW did we as a civilization pass out of barbarism? HOW do we keep from slipping back into it on a daily basis? Those are things to think about and we might actually come up with a more productive foreign policy or at least do less damage if we at very least concidered the matter. But why would we do that when we can drop cluster bombs on evil doers? The very fact that cluster bombs, land mines and other totally indiscriminate weapons in our vastly superior arsenal are there shows that we are not overly concerned with who we kill. I am not saying we target innocents, the way the terrorists do. We just care way more about killing the guilty than about not killing innocents.

Yes, yes, yes, they are worse than we are, hugely worse, nothing relative about it, but that's the whole point. It isn't enough to be savagery lite, especially when we have the money to do much of our savagery at a very civilzed remove. Dropping a bomb on a building is easier, cleaner, and you are targetting bad guys and their infrastructure as opposed to civillians, but it's also so expensive!

"it doesn't mean there aren't serious cultural and governmental problems that encourage terrorism."

I couldn't agree more. Do you think our current methods are working? I respect you far more than the president or the secretary of deffense, as I respect others who think our current course of action, while horribly costly, may wield worthwhile results in the end. I know people who think that the results already yielded in voting and the current governments are worth the cost in anguish. Respectfully, I don't. I do not think the path we are on can result in stability. I think it is fatally flawed. And yet, somehow, I think you ahve arrived at your conclusions without 'playing games' or 'being apathetic'. Hmmm. How could this be?

"AND OMG, THE GUILT!!! HELP ME, I'M LIBERAL AND FEEL SHAME!!"

While certainly liberal, the only things I'm ashamed of are things we've done in my lifetime. Things we did in the past might be humbling or instructive, but I see very little value in being ashamed. Again, for all liberals everywhere, I apologize for the bad hippies who frightened you at some critical point in your developement. You should talk to more angry socialist grandchildren of labor activists. We're lovely.

"Do we let radical Islam slide"

I'm sorry for the bad hippy that suggested that. I'm certain he or she is an idiot. I'm sure there's almost no groiund to stand on between 'letting it slide' and invading and occupying a country on false premisses. As for the 'sure, but that's the distant past, now we're there, what are you going to do now?!' argument, I'll admit I'm not sure. I'm far more sure of what we shouldn't do, which is build really large permanent bases on account of it makes us look like we plan on staying for a while. I also think Invading Iran might not be a great idea. I know we haven't done that yet, and the days when we did things like that are in the past, but I do worry. I think it might be good to try some new approaches to dealing with radical islam, because killing them in droves does not seem to be working.

"It's his fundamentalism that has helped free a heck of a lot of muslims from a tyrannical regime."

While that may at some future point prove to be the case, I do not think the Iraqis are free of anything yet. They have traded terror for terror, misery for misery. We will never know if or when Sadaams dictatorship woud have fallen or to whom or what might have repalced it. But without implying that Sadaams dictatorship wasn't a very, very bad thing, I think what they have now is also very, very bad. And if any of this was ever about freeing people from tyranny... I'm sorry, I just don't see it. That's a label we put on things way after the fact, and to any degree it's true, accidental. If that was ever in any way his aim, his fundamentlism, simplistic and brutal, couldn't comprehend the seething stew of ethnic, tribal tension he was wading into. I have no problem with faith informing a world leaders decisions. I have serious, serious problems with fundamentalism informing them. Fundamentalists are not keen on doubt, and are not known for flexability.