Haha. You're all wrong.

You speak of "them" as some sort of monolithic group with identical views. There are radical religious extremists, western sympathetic liberals and a vast majority who are mostly interested in just getting on with their lives. The extremists within Islam may never change their minds, but right now (and for many years) the vast center has been sympathetic and supportive of the extremists.

Are you saying that we can never win "them" over to our side? What can we do, then? Subjugation? Extermination?

I was/am referring to the extremists who are the ones actually killing people. I realize there are Muslims who are apethetic to western Civilization, and even supporters of it. Now do you deny that the extremists who hide behind Islam are responsible for the majority of civilian deaths?

My main point was to remind those of you that believe we need to change our society to conform to "thier" rules, that it's not just our foreign policy, as several have claimed throughout this forum, that what "they" dislike most about our society is in fact our whole society and social structure.

On a side note, if we do change our ways to better suit "them" all we are doing is validating thier means. Extremists use terror to try and remake the world as they see fit, so if we change "our ways" to appease them, all we are saying is "kill a few civilians in as gruesome a manner as possible and they will change to make us happy"

Equally valid if a someone in Iraq wrote thusly:

I was/am referring to the extremists who are the ones actually killing people. I realize there are Christians who are apathetic to Middle-Eastern Civilization, and even supporters of it. Now do you deny that the extremists who hide behind Christianity are responsible for the majority of civilian deaths?

My main point was to remind those of you that believe we need to change our society to conform to "thier" rules, that it's not just our foreign policy, as several have claimed throughout this forum, that what "they" dislike most about our society is in fact our whole society and social structure.

so returning veterans who say we were welcomed are lying? hmmm. and we aren't making them conform to our society, Iraqis are writing thier laws and creating their government. Now I know your going to bring up that we disposed of thier old government forcefully and against their will, but I do remember the Iraqis trying to do that very thing repeatedly.

Actually that's not true. They don't hate us for our civilization. There will always be a few fanatics of any religion that call for the conversion/eradication of non-believers. Prominent Americans have called for the conversion of the Middle East to Christianity. But you don't see Americans strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up train stations. Why? Because it isn't just ideology that creates terrorists, it's the social/political/economic situation too. Iraq is a perfect example of this. The US military has estimated that there are around 100,000 insurgents in Iraq. Before the US invasion there weren't 100,000 people who were willing to head to Europe to destroy "our civilization." Conditions in Iraq helped create those insurgents. Conditions that have been exploited by groups like Al-Qaeda.

If you don't address the underlying problems that Al-Qaeda exploits to recruit new terrorists, you won't stop terrorism. Military action alone won't work. Extremist messages don't spread if there isn't already deep discontent with the status quo. If you just say, "they hate us for our civilization" you might as well surrender now.

Please point these vets out to me. I've not met any that have said anything but it's a chaotic mess and we should re-deploy as Rep. Murtha has suggested.

In fact most military I know that have witnessed this mess agree with Murtha at this point.

umm they did blow them selves up in Europe.

Iranian Embassy, London circa 1982
London Metro bombing, 2 years ago
Madrid Subway bombings, 3 years ago
Pan Am, Lockerbie Scotland, late 80's
those are just off the top of my head

so the whole Africa bombings, the airline strikes in the 70's and 80's, the first WTC bombing I guess they were just warmups for the US invasion of Iraq.

*note dates are approximate

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june06/iraq_3-24.html
and here is the part i found most interesting



plus I know several veterans who I used to serve with who validate this.

what I find real interesting is that the article you link to supports my view more than your own.

The words of these soldiers are exactly the sort of thing my Marine buddies tell me.
(Don't be shocked. Marines and other servicemen are some of the few men I know that treat me like a Lady --Cops too)

Hmm. Maybe you should read "Clash of Civilizations" by Samuel P. Huntington. 1st year literature for polisci students.

Briana Dawson

Yes, and I agreed with you on this point.


Perhaps for the extremists.


Again, if we do as you're suggesting (with "them" meaning "the extremists" then you're right, it won't do any good.

However:
For the most part, what I have seen advocated is to change our foreign policy and the rhetoric out of washington its to address the average people in Islamic countries, not the extremists. You seem to have confused others referring to the ordinary people as "them" with your use of "them" as the extremists.

I think the people on the ground have been doing very well given the situation they were given to work with and I think they are starting to see some progress. Their job would have been a lot easier if we had gone in with real international support. It would also have been a lot easier if we had been realistic about what it would take to get things working again. Instead we just charged in like a bunch of drunken cowboys.

In addition, we are fighting 50+ years of our poor decisions in the Middle East. (and yes, that includes Carter and Clinton as well as Reagan Bush and Bush and streaching back throughout the cold war) Islamic countries have a long history of our actions to look back on with anger. So, maybe if by "our ways" you mean "doing whatever we want in the world as long as it supports our short term interest" then I am suggesting that we need to change "our ways" to appease the average Muslim.

Personally, I feel that our biggest problem in Iraq was that we brought enough to troops to win the war, but not to enforce the peace. I know that Michael prefers if I do not refer to coventional warfare examples, but they are the most similar experiences that we have to draw lessons from. The occupation, and rebuilding difficulties, we face in Iraq are hardly new as reported by Mark Levin of the National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200406011433.asp

There are many similarities that can be drawn between these two situations. Of course the Iraqi people want their country rebuilt and they wanted it done yesterday. So did the Germans. Of course they know things are worse than they were before the war. So did the Germans. Of course there are attacks being made on the occupation forces. This also has taken place before. This is the nature of change especially after a government has been dismantled. There is anarchy and chaos, until a local government can be established and becomes accepted as the norm. Attacks will increase in frequency and intensity the closer we get to returning Iraq any sort of normalcy. The extremists can't afford to allow Iraq to be seen as a victory.

Bah! We just need to get off our butts, and use our nukes. Specially since the shelf life on the ones we got are getting ready to expire.

And none of those attacks that you listed were against our civilization. Every one of them was motivated by different political events. The Madrid train bombings were in response to Spanish troops in Iraq. The Iranian Embassy was about the Iranian revolution. The first WTC bombings were in retaliation for US support of Israel. You can't just take every terrorist event committed by radical Muslims and claim they are all related. They aren't.

And even so, you still didn't disprove my point. My point was that the invasion of Iraq has created 100,000 new insurgents. Insurgents who weren't on their way to Europe to attack our "civilization". They were created by events in Iraq. They didn't just appear one day and decide to hate us for our freedom.

Nowhere in Huntington's book does he say that Muslims hate us for our civilization. In fact, Huntington not only discusses the points where different civilizations conflict as well as where they don't. My point is actually taken from that book. To generalize intercivilizational conflict as "they hate us for our civilization" isn't at all useful. They may not care for certain aspects of Western Civilization, just as we find certain aspects of Islamic Civilization unappealing. But when you say "they hate us for our civilization" that ends the discussion.

The idea that they hate us for something we can't change and that they will always hate us for it and that their hate is irrational is the same propagandistic nonsense that has been used to sell nearly every war in history. I would suggest you read chapter 10 of Kitchen's "A History of Modern Germany". His description of Prussian propaganda during the First World War is eerily similar to the first sentence in this paragraph.

Actually if you're comparing the Iraq War with other conventional wars I don't have a problem. If you're comparing the "war" on terror with a conventional war, you're making a mistake. The Iraq War and the "war" on terror shouldn't be conflated. They are two very different things. The Iraq War is a specific military venture. It was bungled badly by armchair intellectuals who had no personal military experience; overruling the advice from the Pentagon in order to prove their own pet theories. And now we have a huge mess that could easily slide into a religious civil war. The comparison to postwar Germany is pretty stretched though. In Germany there wasn't the danger of Protestants and Catholics bombing each others churches.

The "war" on terror is a global struggle against violent fundamentalist groups. It will take an entirely different approach, combining law enforcement, military, diplomacy, international organizations, and foreign aid. We have to combat those terrorists that already exist and at the same time "drain the swamps" that produce new terrorist recruits.

just for the record You cant reason with anyone who sincerely believes in any god.



Yes I agree you should say NO MORE to the UNITED STATES GOVERMENT ATTACKING ITS OWN PEOPLE TO CREATE PANIC (to which you seem to be an unwitting victim (very unwitting)). Bin laden was always a CIA ASSET. USA CREATED THE TALIBAN! THEY USED TO WORK FOR USA (and still do in a slightly more deceptive manner). Why dont you grab the history books and read up on the CIA director ordering the (failed) attack on the WTC in the 1980's. Why? to create panic and usher martial law and police state mentalities.

Again I agree. The fake terrorist attacks will not stop. The rigged elections will not stop. As was so beautifully stated in the book 1984.. The perfect war is a war that never ends. Where no one side ever wins. A war that rages on fueling the greed and wealth of the people who control the world and its citizens.



All I can say about that is....

"He who gives up liberty for security deserves neither liberty nor security and will lose both." -Ben Franklin.

ROFLMAO. So it is true... america is in a war against.... THEMSELVES. lol.

Ask yourself who is the most violent, most fundamentalist group on the planet... thats right...

The Land Of The Naive, And The Home ... Of The.....Slaaaaveessss.


pfft,
Neurosis

I am curious... where are you from?

Um, yeah, sure.