or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fighting Them There, So We Don't Have to Here
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Fighting Them There, So We Don't Have to Here

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
I have been troubled with these comments from Bush, Rice and Rumsfeld that "we're fighting the terrorists there (Iraq), so we don't have to fight them here".

I would really like to hear from a Republican, particularly a neo-con supporting Republican, to explain such a hypocritical statement.

Our rational for occupying Iraq has changed three times. First there were the mushroom clouds and WMD's. When that was no longer going to work it was conveniently changed to freedom and liberation for the Iraqi people. Now we're just fighting terrorism in Iraq so we don't have to at home.

So my question is, how do we square this philosophy with the average Iraqi citizen? On one side of our mouth we're telling them that we love them, that we want them to be a free people, that we want them to enjoy democracy and freedom. And on the other side of our mouth we're telling them that their country and their people are expendable assets in our War on Terror (sorry, War Against Violent Extremists). Are we so shallow and crass a country that we would admit so openly and honestly that we truly don't give a rat's ass about their freedom and the reconstruction of their country? That we have chosen their homeland as our battlefield?

Are we so blinded by our own hubris that we're willing to insult and an entire people by allowing them to die, be victims of horrendous terrorism, encouraging all-out civil war so that we don't have to do it here?

How can America have any credibility in its effort to spread democracy when its own commander-in-chief openly states that Iraq and its citizens are expendable?

So which is it folks? Are our efforts noble and just? Or are we just a bullish, brazen, "we'll do what the f*ck we want" nation unwilling to bare the brunt of our own war?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #2 of 42
No offence but that is how most of the world see's the U.S.A, In my view clinton was a good pres for you guys . Personally i'd rather have an adulter(er) as a pres than bush. All bush has done is escalate tensions around the world,remeber the whole french thing over iraq

As far as terrorism goes, yes were right to be in Iraq as not only do we get to deal with it and have a strong hold in that region but it lets muslims, islamists see westerners and understand us better rather than being told from birth to hate us.
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #3 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by cybermonkey
As far as terrorism goes, yes were right to be in Iraq as not only do we get to deal with it and have a strong hold in that region but it lets muslims, islamists see westerners and understand us better rather than being told from birth to hate us.

Ah yes, they now understand that we are not mighty only in paper, but also in action. Bombs aea a very good way to introduce ourselves...
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #4 of 42
It's just about the perfect example of a false dichotomy. There's no logical reason why fighting them in Iraq will prevent terrorism in our home countries. Just ask the Londoners. Furthermore, there's a very good chance it will create terrorists, thus increasing, not decreasing, the chances that we'll get hit at home.
post #5 of 42
All this got me thinking about how the romans fell and just how much land and influence the muslims had over europe for a long time. Maybe were repeating history and the west is due for a kick in the arse as in past history? The only thing is that if that happens again it'sgoing to be with nukes and i dont get to stay in t he upcomming space hotel
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #6 of 42
_removed off topic rant_ sorry northgate.
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #7 of 42
Quote:
The other thing is, we've been at this 'war on terror' for how long now, and we haven't even caught osama bin laden? we haven't really made any decisive headway, and there have still been a few more 'big' attacks. Seems to me our approach thus far would do more to stroke the egos of potential terrorists(like, 'haha stupid americans can't catch us') than dissuade them from doing anything.

Wouldnt surprise me that we haven't caught him on purpose? Keeps the whole thing on going and may make him a martar
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #8 of 42
_removed_ 2nd off topic rant
orange you just glad?
Reply
orange you just glad?
Reply
post #9 of 42
"Fighting Them There So We Don't Have To Here" seems perplexing because it comes from the advertising world, not the political world.

As such, it has no obligation to tell us anything meaningful about the product being proffered, and is designed only to play on certain sensibilities to generate a pleasing result.

The problem is that unlike, say "Tastes Great Less Filling", slogans from the Bush White House but up against real world consequences, creating a sense of cognitive dissonance.

There is an entire ecology of journalism and punditry that proceeds from the notion that, when it comes to matters of policy, an American presidential administration at least more or less means what it says, and that however tricked out in persuasive language those statements may be they reflect what is, at heart, a system of beliefs put into action.

With the Bush administration, to a degree not seen before (but, I fear, surely to be seen again), we have sloganeering preceding policy, and in some cases appearing to replace it outright.

Fighting Them There So We Don't Have To Here doesn't actually mean anything at all, beyond its utility as an advertising slogan, and could as well read "The War On Terror: Now With More Resolve for all the difference it makes.

But instead of reporters asking White House officials, "So, um, WTF does that mean, anyway?" they are obliged to pretend that the phrase somehow alludes to some actual plan based on actual policy, so you end up with head scratchers like "but doesn't that reduce the Iraqi people to the status of decoys?"

Which it does, of course, but attempting to get the administration or its apologists to explain the obvious implications of its own rhetoric is pointless, because "implications" has no bearing on why they say what they do.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #10 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Fighting Them There So We Don't Have To Here doesn't actually mean anything at all, beyond its utility as an advertising slogan, and could as well read "The War On Terror: Now With More Resolve for all the difference it makes.

But instead of reporters asking White House officials, "So, um, WTF does that mean, anyway?" they are obliged to pretend that the phrase somehow alludes to some actual plan based on actual policy, so you end up with head scratchers like "but doesn't that reduce the Iraqi people to the status of decoys?"

Which it does, of course, but attempting to get the administration or its apologists to explain the obvious implications of its own rhetoric is pointless, because "implications" has no bearing on why they say what they do.

Thank you for responding to the question I posed at the top of this thread. My worry about starting the thread in the first place was that it would derail into a discussion about the WOT in general and not on the specific rhetoric the current administration uses to sell the America people and it's consequences on the world stage.

I suppose I was expecting the Bush apologists to use the same tired response of "I don't really care what the rest of the world thinks", etc.

My big fear is that this type of sloaganeering will have very long term negative effects on future US foreign policy in the middle east. How can any Muslim nation trust American ever again. The trust level was already extraordinarily low and now it appears we've completely nuked it beyond repair.

We used to be a great nation that truly believed that democracy and free markets were the best for all societies if given a chance. We fought an honorable fight against communism based on these ideals. But now these ideals have been turned into a marketing campaign that doesn't square with reality.

Have we truly become a redneck nation? Do we only cater to the "fuck 'em" crowd now?

I think it's time for the American people to fess up and admit that they don't truly give a crap about the Iraqi people. That they truly aren't interested in their freedom or their democracy.

The sad part about all this is that our troops DO believe that this is noble and just. This is the only thing they have to hold onto as they risk their lives in the hell-hole sandbox the Bush administration has created.

But what do I know. I'm just a "Blame America First" liberal.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #11 of 42
Quote:
I think it's time for the American people to fess up and admit that they don't truly give a crap about the Iraqi people. That they truly aren't interested in their freedom or their democracy.


If they did that USA would be in a bigger hole than there in now, It's all about diplomacy, After all, the truth hurts.
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #12 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by cybermonkey
If they did that USA would be in a bigger hole than there in now, It's all about diplomacy, After all, the truth hurts.

What is diplomatic about saying we "Fighting Theme There So We Don't Have to Here"? This type of crap is the direct result of Bush's stubborn and shortsited help in the west wing. This is Carl Rove at his most sublime. It's all about appeasing Bubba (the voter) with zero thought about whether or not the rest of the world is listening.

Which brings up another interesting irony. Conservatives have been on a massive campaign over the last couple years desperately trying quell any type of dissention. They have actively been rapping the knuckles of any Democrat or liberal by screaming "you are aiding and abetting the enemy with your rhetoric!"

Yet, they don't even realize that their own president's rhetoric is so irresponsible and stupid that his oft-repeated (today in fact) sloagan is probably the PRIMARY incendary language that gets echoed throughout the entire world.

I'm waiting for the "Dude, relax" comment any time now.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #13 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
What is diplomatic about saying we "Fighting Theme There So We Don't Have to Here"? This type of crap is the direct result of Bush's stubborn and shortsited help in the west wing. This is Carl Rove at his most sublime. It's all about appeasing Bubba (the voter) with zero thought about whether or not the rest of the world is listening.

Which brings up another interesting irony. Conservatives have been on a massive campaign over the last couple years desperately trying quell any type of dissention. They have actively been rapping the knuckles of any Democrat or liberal by screaming "you are aiding and abetting the enemy with your rhetoric!"

Yet, they don't even realize that their own president's rhetoric is so irresponsible and stupid that his oft-repeated (today in fact) sloagan is probably the PRIMARY incendary language that gets echoed throughout the entire world.

I'm waiting for the "Dude, relax" comment any time now.

No please don't It's certainly refreshing to hear an american slagging the T-war. What i meant though is If bush came out with the truth or any other hidden agenda about iraq there would be uproar worldwide, even more so than there is now that not only would hurt the USA both politcally and economically and everyone else who has been involved/supported. Don't get me wrong i'm no bush fan but you don't get anywhere in this political world by shouting out what you really think.
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #14 of 42
The trouble with sloganeering sans policy is that eventually the real world catches up to you. So far, the right (with the assistance of a compliant and lazy press) has done a remarkable job of framing reality as "partisan", but that only works for so long. Eventually, the gulf between what's being said and what's actually happening becomes so vast that even Joe six-pack has to kinda rear back and go "Hey...... wait a minute......."

So at some point soon, the quagmire in Iraq becomes too horrible for Freedom Is On The March to cover, we declare victory, certify the Iraqi forces as Good To Go and switch slogans to Our Work Here Is Done.

So if Iraq then descends into chaos (if it hasn't already), how does Bush square those slogans with what any American can see is happening?

Simple, he doesn't have to, because he's Out of Office! Mission Accomplished!
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #15 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
The trouble with sloganeering sans policy is that eventually the real world catches up to you. So far, the right (with the assistance of a compliant and lazy press) has done a remarkable job of framing reality as "partisan", but that only works for so long. Eventually, the gulf between what's being said and what's actually happening becomes so vast that even Joe six-pack has to kinda rear back and go "Hey...... wait a minute......."

So at some point soon, the quagmire in Iraq becomes too horrible for Freedom Is On The March to cover, we declare victory, certify the Iraqi forces as Good To Go and switch slogans to Our Work Here Is Done.

So if Iraq then descends into chaos (if it hasn't already), how does Bush square those slogans with what any American can see is happening?

Simple, he doesn't have to, because he's Out of Office! Mission Accomplished!

That's true!

Although here in the UK i do like the pre-iraq war blair, I can not apologise enough for how he let himself get manipulated into being bushe's lacky

Hopefully, brown will loose the labour voting machine and we'll have the conserves back arguing with the french over europe Ah the good old days
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #16 of 42
Our reasons to be in Iraq have evolved with the situation in Iraq. Disarming SH is no longer the problem. Today's problem is preventing Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists ala pre-911Afganistan. We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq and destroying their infrastructure almost as fast as they build it. We must not allow another country to get like Afghanistan. We will fight terrorists in any nation with a terrorism-sympathetic regime. Iran and Syria are on the scope.
Moe has left the building
Reply
Moe has left the building
Reply
post #17 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Our rational for occupying Iraq has changed three times. First there were the mushroom clouds and WMD's. When that was no longer going to work it was conveniently changed to freedom and liberation for the Iraqi people. Now we're just fighting terrorism in Iraq so we don't have to at home.

First of all, the rationale hasn't changed at all. Saddam didn't 'disarm' in an offical way -- he was a troublemaker, and would cause trouble agian. So he was uninstalled from power. Now, that was the expedient reason given, and it's technically correct; so once we are past that point the process moves into a different stage.

The next stage was to turn the lights back on, and get the various groups together to try to get a constitution together -- unless the efforts that international terrorism have brought to bear are America's fault -- apparently for trying to start a democracy along the lines of Indonesia, then the blood is not on America's hands, it lies elsewhere. The only people in this equation who hold the human life is expendable are the international criminals that are blowing up innocent people to further their own ends.

All of this, is a the result of a very bold, very risky move to drive a wedge in the ME and make a democracy where there really has never been one. I'm not certain it's even possible, but hey, if they can make it fly in Indonesia and hop around on one leg in Iran, I guess it's worth a try.

The last part to this question is a bit like the press conference during the Balkans bombing campaign, where the reporters actually asked the DoD spokesman where they were going to bomb the next day. The strategy going on here is being kept deliberatly murky, so I don't know the sense of trying to play Monday Morning quarterback.

The business of not fighting them here, but over there goes back to the strategy. I would imagine that having the Great Satan in their back yard is a much more pressing engagement than trying to tip over tall buildings with a single atrocity. Yes, there is the matter of "making terrorists" but in reality, those resources are going to be there in the Madrasahs, in the hateful sermons until the situation is dealt with. Once you tell off the abusive parent, they are going to kick you out of the house in any case -- if you are a good little victim you can feel guilty about 'provoking' the abuser.

But, in the end the confrontation must come.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #18 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Moe_in_Texas
Our reasons to be in Iraq have evolved with the situation in Iraq. Disarming SH is no longer the problem. Today's problem is preventing Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists ala pre-911Afganistan.

Oh I know that phenomena from my everyday life. When I want to have a BBQ in my garden I first try to jump start the grill with some gasoline. Then the objective becomes to fight the fire in the dry grass and trees. But thats good I guess. Better to have my garden on fire than my house.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #19 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Oh I know that phenomena from my everyday life. When I want to have a BBQ in my garden I first try to jump start the grill with some gasoline. Then the objective becomes to fight the fire in the dry grass and trees. But thats good I guess. Better to have my garden on fire than my house.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #20 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate


We used to be a great nation that truly believed that democracy and free markets were the best for all societies if given a chance. We fought an honorable fight against communism based on these ideals. But now these ideals have been turned into a marketing campaign that doesn't square with reality.

Have we truly become a redneck nation? Do we only cater to the "fuck 'em" crowd now?

I think it's time for the American people to fess up and admit that they don't truly give a crap about the Iraqi people. That they truly aren't interested in their freedom or their democracy.

The sad part about all this is that our troops DO believe that this is noble and just. This is the only thing they have to hold onto as they risk their lives in the hell-hole sandbox the Bush administration has created.

But what do I know. I'm just a "Blame America First" liberal.


Northgate thank you for this thread and the subject you bring up. I too would like to hear the answer to your opening question of this thread by supporters of this admin.

I agree with you completely. America was once a great nation and sadly we have fallen from grace.

In the mean time millions of people starve in Niger. It would have been a better use of money for us as a nation to help out the starving in Niger than waste $300 billion and expend 1,000's of lives with our invasion of Iraq.

I hope America will see better days ahead. Bush and his supporters have tarnished this once great country in a very real way. I refuse to let it get me down however. We who value and uphold integrity, honor and ethics must protect our country from the grip of greed, power and corruption.

Again I personally thank you for this thread Northgate.

You are a real American..

Respectfully,

Fellowship
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #21 of 42
Athough Northgate, if you rent Fahrenheit 9/11 or The Power of Nightmares, or get into contact with certain other posters, you can find out the 'real' truth about all this. You can see that Bush/Cheney took long vactations, actually knew about 9/11, only went into Afghanistan for oil, only went into Iraq for the oil, and are at the heart of a worldwide neocon conspiracy that only the top minds at the Weekly World News can penetrate.

Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.

Just don't watch Al Jezeera...

...or ask a London commuter

...or ask anyone vactationing in Egypt

...or ask a 'little Eichman' getting a skin graft

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #22 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz


Just don't watch Al Jezeera...

...or ask a London commuter

...or ask anyone vactationing in Egypt

...or ask a 'little Eichman' getting a skin graft

Pathetic.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #23 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Pathetic.

I tell you, it's the cognitive dissonance.

Being obliged to endlessly defend the indefensible and swear to the veracity of the crudest lies drives them quite mad.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #24 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Pathetic.

Illustrate, please, the 'little Eichmans' are dying to know.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #25 of 42
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Athough Northgate, if you rent Fahrenheit 9/11 or The Power of Nightmares, or get into contact with certain other posters, you can find out the 'real' truth about all this. You can see that Bush/Cheney took long vactations, actually knew about 9/11, only went into Afghanistan for oil, only went into Iraq for the oil, and are at the heart of a worldwide neocon conspiracy that only the top minds at the Weekly World News can penetrate.

Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.
Just remember, there is no organized terrorist threat.

Just don't watch Al Jezeera...

...or ask a London commuter

...or ask anyone vactationing in Egypt

...or ask a 'little Eichman' getting a skin graft

This thread is not about the merits of fighting a war on terrorism. This thread is also not about whether going into Afghanistan and taking down the Taliban was just or not. I believe it was. This thread is not about whether we were just in going into Iraq. I believe it was not.

What this thread is about is whether or not the current administrations use of dangerous rhetoric is hurting or helping our cause.

Why can't you see that?
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #26 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
What this thread is about is whether or not the current administrations use of dangerous rhetoric is hurting or helping our cause.

I'm sorry, Northgate I don't see that at all. It sounded like a critcism of GWB's presumably shifty reasons for moving on Iraq, and that we are treating the Iraqi people like doormats.

This might be a clumsy half-baked attempt to prime the demoracy pump, but once the invasion was over NO ONE else needed to die in order for the plan to proceed. And yes, it may seem highly UNaltruistic to make the mess 'over there', but I think it's not going to, or can't, be effectively confronted 'over here'.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #27 of 42
When are people going to wake up to the fact that the US has ceded power to by small cabal who are consciously waging a war on Islam?

What does it take?

100 more lies? 1000?

Turning Syria into what Iraq is now? Iran? Country X?

All the lies are to obscure that fact. So no, the efforts are not 'noble and just'. They merely serve the purpose of the War on Islam - just as Abu Ghraib does, just as reports of Qur'an desecration does.

The difference is that the lies to the people at home are there to obscure the fact because there are many decent, moral people in America who wouldn't stand for it if they knew. the rest of the stuff is to pass a message to Muslims - and no-one who isn't a Muslim can properly receive that message which is why this is not common knowledge.

It is in the Middle East though and that's why they're fighting. Sooner or later people in the US may have to fight for their freedom also.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #28 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
When are people going to wake up to the fact that the US has ceded power to by small cabal who are consciously waging a war on Islam?

<snip>

They merely serve the purpose of the War on Islam - just as Abu Ghraib does, just as reports of Qur'an desecration does.

War on Islam? I don't know. This seems like a stretch. Ranting even. The specifics you have mentioned (Abu Ghraib/Qur'an desecration) are (at best) the (wrong) actions of a few that hardly consitute a "war on islam".

You would get more traction (with me anyway) by using the "war for oil and money" argument...in Iraq anyway. Or even that "war on terror" is an ill-conceived approach/tactic.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
What does it take?

For me? More than you have offered in that post.
post #29 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
First of all, the rationale hasn't changed at all. Saddam didn't 'disarm' in an offical way -- he was a troublemaker, and would cause trouble agian. So he was uninstalled from power. Now, that was the expedient reason given, and it's technically correct; so once we are past that point the process moves into a different stage.

The next stage was to turn the lights back on, and get the various groups together to try to get a constitution together -- unless the efforts that international terrorism have brought to bear are America's fault -- apparently for trying to start a democracy along the lines of Indonesia, then the blood is not on America's hands, it lies elsewhere. The only people in this equation who hold the human life is expendable are the international criminals that are blowing up innocent people to further their own ends.

All of this, is a the result of a very bold, very risky move to drive a wedge in the ME and make a democracy where there really has never been one. I'm not certain it's even possible, but hey, if they can make it fly in Indonesia and hop around on one leg in Iran, I guess it's worth a try.

The last part to this question is a bit like the press conference during the Balkans bombing campaign, where the reporters actually asked the DoD spokesman where they were going to bomb the next day. The strategy going on here is being kept deliberatly murky, so I don't know the sense of trying to play Monday Morning quarterback.

The business of not fighting them here, but over there goes back to the strategy. I would imagine that having the Great Satan in their back yard is a much more pressing engagement than trying to tip over tall buildings with a single atrocity. Yes, there is the matter of "making terrorists" but in reality, those resources are going to be there in the Madrasahs, in the hateful sermons until the situation is dealt with. Once you tell off the abusive parent, they are going to kick you out of the house in any case -- if you are a good little victim you can feel guilty about 'provoking' the abuser.

But, in the end the confrontation must come.


Ahem! Here we go again ( and I will challenge this everytime ). The only reason this war was allowed to slip through the usual channels and get " oked " was the threat of WMD. It wouldn't have happened any other way. Too many people were against it! Too many people said at the time " Why is this warrented at this time ".

The Bush administration pressed on the idea of " threat " and " WMD " many times because they desperately wanted it to be true to justify what they had done. There was no threat or WMD. That's been established. Also they tried the 911 tie in route. That didn't work either. The real reason we invaded hasn't to this day been adressed publicly by Bush.

( Well maybe : " He tried to kill my daddy " )

I don't know if he really said that but it had to have come from somewhere.


That's it in a nutshell.


Ps. Why didn't this kind of confrontation come with every two bit dictator in the world that was causing this kind of trouble ( and there are quite a few )? Possible answer is stategy and they don't have oil fields. However then that would mean the president lied to the american people. You know. The same thing they hung Clinton out to dry for.....
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #30 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
War on Islam? I don't know. This seems like a stretch. Ranting even. The specifics you have mentioned (Abu Ghraib/Qur'an desecration) are (at best) the (wrong) actions of a few that hardly consitute a "war on islam".

You would get more traction (with me anyway) by using the "war for oil and money" argument...in Iraq anyway. Or even that "war on terror" is an ill-conceived approach/tactic.

For me? More than you have offered in that post.

Ok, let me clarify. The intention is to 'modify' Islam in the sense of making it more moderate, rather than eradicate it - but it is still a war. The word that is constantly bandied about is 'reformation' (although that is a uniquely Christian concept) and also 'democratize (again purely western) is also often heard.

So in this sense I think we can agree that there is an attempt to 'adjust' Islam emanating from certain sectors in the west. You see it every day - laws against hijab in France (I don't agree with hijab necessarily, this is an illustration), questions of 'multiculturalism' and 'fitting-in' with perceived notions of Britishness are the burning issue now in the UK.

If you spend any time at all in Islamic countries you can see this process at the raw end. It has been going on for years and what jihadis and terror cells that actually do exist (and there are far fewer and they are much lamer than suggested) are in part a reaction against this.

But really, what is important to realise are the reasons for this 'war' (feel free to replace the term if you feel more comfortable) and this will open many Americas so to speak. They are not at all religious.

Essentially, a certain mindset in power in the west views undeveloped countries as resources to be exploited. Regardless of one's moral position on this it is a relatively well known fact. In the case of Islamic countries though (as opposed to say, China) the core belief is opposed to such exploitation because of their beliefs and therefore these beliefs need to be 'modified'.

For example: it is illegal to loan money at interest in Islam and this is a serious block to the west's exploitation of countries with a strong Islamic presence. Even in the UK the market for Islamic mortgages is rising by 50% a year. This represents a significant loss to established banks and you'd better believe they find it worrying.

Similarly, with Halal food, this is a block to mass production of foodstuffs and factory farming (also not appropriate in an Islamic context). Perhaps the biggest hit is taken by pharmaceutical firms, we know they are worried about natural medicine but they have fits about burgeoning numbers of Muslims who refuse vaccinations and certain medicines etc.

All these things need adjusting if big business is to develop new massive markets - this is the subtext of all this 'freedom' and 'democracy' that we hear all the time. Freedom to trade in a way of life of your own for a western one. ANd if you don't it will be forced on you by violence.

That's why I call it a war - what else is it. the result (if successful) will only be an Islam that is no longer 'strict' about such matters and allows all these things that are now forbidden.

And lo, some in the west gets richer.....Oil is just a bonus. You'll see that when they go into Iran and Syria and beyond when it all continues.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #31 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
Oh I know that phenomena from my everyday life. When I want to have a BBQ in my garden I first try to jump start the grill with some gasoline. Then the objective becomes to fight the fire in the dry grass and trees. But thats good I guess. Better to have my garden on fire than my house.


Good analogy!

It really strikes me as funny how desperately Bush supporters try to justfy this action with the wildest stretches of logic ever. They in effect want to sweep this all under the rug and just : " Well, we're there already we might as well continue. Never mind how this all got started ".
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #32 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Ok, let me clarify. The intention is to 'modify' Islam in the sense of making it more moderate, rather than eradicate it - but it is still a war. The word that is constantly bandied about is 'reformation' (although that is a uniquely Christian concept) and also 'democratize (again purely western) is also often heard.

So in this sense I think we can agree that there is an attempt to 'adjust' Islam emanating from certain sectors in the west. You see it every day - laws against hijab in France (I don't agree with hijab necessarily, this is an illustration), questions of 'multiculturalism' and 'fitting-in' with perceived notions of Britishness are the burning issue now in the UK.

If you spend any time at all in Islamic countries you can see this process at the raw end. It has been going on for years and what jihadis and terror cells that actually do exist (and there are far fewer and they are much lamer than suggested) are in part a reaction against this.

But really, what is important to realise are the reasons for this 'war' (feel free to replace the term if you feel more comfortable) and this will open many Americas so to speak. They are not at all religious.

Essentially, a certain mindset in power in the west views undeveloped countries as resources to be exploited. Regardless of one's moral position on this it is a relatively well known fact. In the case of Islamic countries though (as opposed to say, China) the core belief is opposed to such exploitation because of their beliefs and therefore these beliefs need to be 'modified'.

For example: it is illegal to loan money at interest in Islam and this is a serious block to the west's exploitation of countries with a strong Islamic presence. Even in the UK the market for Islamic mortgages is rising by 50% a year. This represents a significant loss to established banks and you'd better believe they find it worrying.

Similarly, with Halal food, this is a block to mass production of foodstuffs and factory farming (also not appropriate in an Islamic context). Perhaps the biggest hit is taken by pharmaceutical firms, we know they are worried about natural medicine but they have fits about burgeoning numbers of Muslims who refuse vaccinations and certain medicines etc.

All these things need adjusting if big business is to develop new massive markets - this is the subtext of all this 'freedom' and 'democracy' that we hear all the time. Freedom to trade in a way of life of your own for a western one. ANd if you don't it will be forced on you by violence.

That's why I call it a war - what else is it. the result (if successful) will only be an Islam that is no longer 'strict' about such matters and allows all these things that are now forbidden.

And lo, some in the west gets richer.....Oil is just a bonus. You'll see that when they go into Iran and Syria and beyond when it all continues.

This is an interesting post and I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Not trying to get "in your face" here...please keep that in mind.

1. Islamic reformation...I have heard this idea from a lot of people...even those that don't really care for W...the war in Iraq, etc. The basica belief is that "Christianty was whacky until its reformation. Islam needs the same." Are you saying that Islam does NOT need reformation (along the lines of the Christian Protestant reformation)?

2. Regarding the vaccination issue. Do you think it is right for Muslims to refuse vaccinations and certain medicines...perhaps based on their beliefs?

I generally agree that big business seems to be on the verge of (if not already) running things. Though I think things are bit more complex that just "those big bad greedy corporations". We should start another thread to discuss that though.
post #33 of 42
Quote:
2. Regarding the vaccination issue. Do you think it is right for Muslims to refuse vaccinations and certain medicines...perhaps based on their beliefs?

I for one think there should be vacinated upon entering any country that requires it. Here in the UK, TB is on the increase some professionals say it's at epidemic proportions in london which is being bought in by immigrants and goes unchecked, Britain once had this diesease eradicated from the country

At work i am a first aider, We've seen 2 asians ( immigrated from pakistan ) go off sick with TB and after treating several iraq'es/kurds not one of them have had a tetnus or any other important jabs, Hepititus being an issue.
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #34 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This is an interesting post and I'd like to ask a couple of questions. Not trying to get "in your face" here...please keep that in mind.

1. Islamic reformation...I have heard this idea from a lot of people...even those that don't really care for W...the war in Iraq, etc. The basica belief is that "Christianty was whacky until its reformation. Islam needs the same." Are you saying that Islam does NOT need reformation (along the lines of the Christian Protestant reformation)?

2. Regarding the vaccination issue. Do you think it is right for Muslims to refuse vaccinations and certain medicines...perhaps based on their beliefs?

I generally agree that big business seems to be on the verge of (if not already) running things. Though I think things are bit more complex that just "those big bad greedy corporations". We should start another thread to discuss that though.

Regarding #1: I would say what Is Islam? What is reform?

There is no church, no doctrine, no Pope. With Christianity there was a monolithic entity that clearly stated certain things and people took issue with this. In Islam there is no equivalence.

To put it another way: to be a Muslim is to accept the shahadah - to believe that 'there is no God except God and Muhammad is His Prophet'. That's it - the only dogma. This can not be reformed and no Muslim of any sect whatsoever would suggest it - if they did they would not be Muslims.

If OBL believes this (and he does) then he is a Muslim according to the Jurists, same with the most peaceful moderate that exists. Of course the after-death situations of both may be very different but there is no concept of 'salvation' as such so Mr Moderate is free to believe OBL is a Muslim who is going to hell. it's not like Christianity where being a Christian infers salvation.

So, reform is not possible - there is nothing to reform. What is necessary is to neutralize the literalists and foster an environment where discussion and ideas can flow freely - as in Islam's 'Golden age'. That will kill off the Taleban and the Wahabis far more effectively than military means.

But it would not be reform, it would be a return to original principles that were lost.

Re#2: absolutely. I believe these vaccines are an evil. I know people whose children have been damaged irreperably by them and you absolutely cannot trust the makers on any grounds let alone religious.

They use many harmful substances (Mercury is just one) and they don't care what effect it has, it is merely to preserve the vaccine (and thereby boost profits and shelf-life). It is not at all about the welfare of the recipient. Doctors are paid on commission to prescribe regardless. It is immoral and far from what healthcare should be. There may be even more sinister agendas.

Don't trust them.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #35 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by cybermonkey
I for one think there should be vacinated upon entering any country that requires it. Here in the UK, TB is on the increase some professionals say it's at epidemic proportions in london which is being bought in by immigrants and goes unchecked, Britain once had this diesease eradicated from the country

At work i am a first aider, We've seen 2 asians ( immigrated from pakistan ) go off sick with TB and after treating several iraq'es/kurds not one of them have had a tetnus or any other important jabs, Hepititus being an issue.

I should clarify my post above now I've read this.

In certain cases I think one must weigh it up and make a decision in the 'real world'. Philosophically I think that the Research should be focussed on vaccines that do not have damaging side effects and based on altruistic principles rather than financial ones. For myself I am willing to make this statement and not have any.

When it comes to my daughter we weigh it up differently. I would never give her the MMR vaccine for example and as yet at 6 she has had none but if we were to travel to the Middle East or other underdeveloped country as will happen at some point, I would give the Polio shot as without it the chances of getting it are quite high and I would not wish to be responsible for this. It is a very bad disease and quite rampant in some places.

But another thing: why should we all be vaccinated against even minor things like measles, flu etc? Even if it does work?

This stuff is weakening us - when I was a kid we had all that stuff: measles, mumps, chickenpox. let em have it - why are we so scared and closeted now? (it's rhetorical - I know the answer: we are trained that way so they can sell us the 'solution').
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #36 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Regarding #1: I would say what Is Islam? What is reform?

There is no church, no doctrine, no Pope. With Christianity there was a monolithic entity that clearly stated certain things and people took issue with this. In Islam there is no equivalence.

This is an interesting characterization. In fact, this is exactly how I view protestant Christianity. So when someone says "well 'the church' says/does/did/etc." it is a rather foreign concept to me. In Christianity the authority is God (the father), Jesus Christ (the son) and the Bible. In Islam I would assume that it is God/Allah, Muhammad and the Koran.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
it's not like Christianity where being a Christian infers salvation.

Christianity is indeed unique in its view of the idea of salvation. In fact it is probably the single thing (at least in the details) that is fundamentally different from every other belief/faith system.

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
What is necessary is to neutralize the literalists and foster an environment where discussion and ideas can flow freely

This is an interesting turn of a phrase. Neutralize one group that believes certain set of things in order to "foster an environment where discussion and ideas can flow freely". Not sure it works that way. In the U.S. we have the constitutional right of freedom of expression (government cannot take away)...and the corollary cultural value of "freedom of expression". We have, more or less, come to accept that with this freedom comes the good, bad and ugly of expression. We, generally, avoid restricting it, except in extreme cases (the old "fire in a crowded theater" thing, slander, etc.)

Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Re#2: absolutely. I believe these vaccines are an evil. I know people whose children have been damaged irreperably by them and you absolutely cannot trust the makers on any grounds let alone religious.

They use many harmful substances (Mercury is just one) and they don't care what effect it has, it is merely to preserve the vaccine (and thereby boost profits and shelf-life). It is not at all about the welfare of the recipient. Doctors are paid on commission to prescribe regardless. It is immoral and far from what healthcare should be. There may be even more sinister agendas.

Don't trust them.

This is interesting. I have heard (recently, in this forum I think) someone essentially bash "those Christian nut-jobs that won't vaccinate their kids" or some such drivel.)

Note, I am not knowledgable enough about the vaccination issue to hold any strong opinion one way or another. Just find your position interesting and the fact that some view "those Christian nut-jobs that won't vaccinate their kids" because they "don't believe in medicine or science".
post #37 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
...or ask a London commuter

Already done it and I've yet to find any with political views that differ greatly from those that Northgate's expressed.
Quote:
...or ask a 'little Eichman' getting a skin graft

How about their families?

You can't invoke the victims of the attacks against the West. The vast majority don't share your political views, they share Northgate's.
post #38 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
I should clarify my post above now I've read this.

In certain cases I think one must weigh it up and make a decision in the 'real world'. Philosophically I think that the Research should be focussed on vaccines that do not have damaging side effects and based on altruistic principles rather than financial ones. For myself I am willing to make this statement and not have any.

When it comes to my daughter we weigh it up differently. I would never give her the MMR vaccine for example and as yet at 6 she has had none but if we were to travel to the Middle East or other underdeveloped country as will happen at some point, I would give the Polio shot as without it the chances of getting it are quite high and I would not wish to be responsible for this. It is a very bad disease and quite rampant in some places.

But another thing: why should we all be vaccinated against even minor things like measles, flu etc? Even if it does work?

This stuff is weakening us - when I was a kid we had all that stuff: measles, mumps, chickenpox. let em have it - why are we so scared and closeted now? (it's rhetorical - I know the answer: we are trained that way so they can sell us the 'solution').

i am glad you mentioned Polio, It's a very nasty disease. i agree with you on the measles, caught as children is harmless and it's all over with for life though catching the mumps after puberty can quite harmful to a males sperm count \

the flu only those at high risk should be getting those jabs anyway, Old age, asthma sufferers etc.

But everyone should be getting jabs like tetnus, hepititus. these diseases can and should be prevented.

I can understand your thinking and i agree too many westerners go over the top on medication. I suffer from arthritis and i can tell you that without the NSAIDS i take my life is a living hell, I understand i have a higher risk of a heart attack through taking them but being mobile and relative pain free, It is a risk i am willing to take. It isn't all bad, and personally i wouldn't take some new superdrug straightaway.
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
post #39 of 42
Measles is extremely infectious because it spreads through the air. Basically if you talk to someone with it you're going to get it too. Even today it kills close to a million kids in the world every year who don't vaccinate. That, combined with the fact that there is no research showing any harmful effects of vaccines, makes it irresponsible to not vaccinate.
post #40 of 42
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Measles is extremely infectious because it spreads through the air. Basically if you talk to someone with it you're going to get it too. Even today it kills close to a million kids in the world every year who don't vaccinate. That, combined with the fact that there is no research showing any harmful effects of vaccines, makes it irresponsible to not vaccinate.

I didn't know that, that's very interesting and in that respect i agree with you.
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
Mac mini 1.42ghz & OS X Tiger
The best computing platform in the world
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Fighting Them There, So We Don't Have to Here