[excon]

Hello:

The other night some righty Senator was saying how Gitmo was a shining example of our human rights activities... Then there are those who think Gitmo is an example of the atrocities we committed against Muslims...

The former look around in bewilderment and confusion, and ask, why would they possibly want to do this? They must be crazy, or drunk with religious fervor, or consumed by blinding, inhumane hatred.

The latter points out that we've sent jets and drones and bombs and invading army's and teams of torturers and kidnappers to that part of the world. Long before 9/11 we overthrew their governments, propped up their dictators, and armed Israel to the teeth.

A perfect example of the disconnect goes all the way back to when the Islamic revolution happened... You remember, in 1979 Islamic radicals took over our Embassy and held our people hostage...

The first group wonders why they did that, while the second group patiently explains that America supported a coup, wherein Iran's democratically elected leader was overthrown by our puppet, the Shah. And the Shah repressed the people...

The point of my post is to suggest that simply because the terrorists OBJECT to such and such policy, does NOT prove that such and such policy should be discontinued. It's my view that those who DENY that there are ANY reasons whatsoever for Arab anger, are afraid that a discussion of those policies might show some fault in those polices...

Or, is it just ignorance of those policies, and/or a belief that we're the top dog on the street, and we'll make whatever policies we want whether the Arabs like it or not? And, we ain't going to talk about it, either.

excon

[excon]

Hello again,

Moments ago, the blond anchor on FOX, Jami something or other, described the CIA bombing where 7 of our agents were killed, as "senseless".

It was perfect.. Clearly, it's only "senseless" if you look around in wonderment as to WHY they're pissed at us.

While I lament the loss of ANY American fighter's life, the attack was ANYTHING but senseless. The CIA DOES bomb people from that base. Unless you ARE totally disconnected, you couldn't use the word "senseless" in describing this particular attack.

excon

[speechlesstx]

You'd have to expand on who believes there should be no reason for Arab anger, first.

Secondly, what's the problem, "Arab anger" or "Islamic radicals?" I'd say the problem is Islamic radicals which is what the latter in your thread deny, obfuscate and otherwise gloss over. Until they come to terms with the fact that there are a substantial portion of Muslims bent on worldwide Jihad to either subjugate, convert or kill the infidels (you and I for instance), and establish a global caliphate by force, they're only kidding themselves and putting the rest of us in danger.

If the latter would expend even half the energy on confronting this danger as they did fear mongering over some alleged Bush theocracy we might get somewhere.

[tomder55]

James Bradley's new book 'Imperial Cruise' ,about Teddy Roosevelt, suggests that he in fact caused World War II because of a secret unconstitutional agreement he made with the Japanese 30 years before during the negotiations for the end of the Russo-Japanese War (for which Roosevelt was awarded the Nobel Prize).

The agreement he allegedly made gave them US support for their imperial expansion. They therefore felt betrayed when FDR opposed their expansion with sanctions and the forward deployment of the US fleet .

I don't know if that was their motovation for attacking Pearl Harbor or not . All I know is that once they did attack us we quit worrying why they did . We fought them to defeat them because of their attack.

[excon]

Until they come to terms with the fact that there are a substantial portion of Muslims bent on worldwide Jihad to either subjugate, convert or kill the infidels (you and I for instance), and establish a global caliphate by force, they're only kidding themselves and putting the rest of us in danger.

Hello again, Steve:

If I'm "they", I will come to your terms. I assume your use of the word "Until" above, means that you will now come to MY terms.. Cool.

For starters, WHY don't you think the Arabs should be pissed at us for overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddeq?

excon

[speechlesstx]

For starters, WHY don't you think the Arabs should be pissed at us for overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddeq?

Perhaps because he was Persian and not Arab?

[excon]

All I know is that once they did attack us we quit worrying why they did . We fought them to defeat them because of their attack.

Hello again, tom:

And, if a nation state attacked us this time, I'd agree with you. But, they ain't, and until now, we fought 'em as though they were... Besides, I'm sure you'll agree, that IF they were, we would have kicked their butt by now...

But, since they AIN'T a nation state, and fighting them like they were isn't working out too well, I just thought another approach might shed some light on an otherwise dark situation.. However, as I suggested in another thread, your answer isn't to look for another approach. Your answer is simply to "crack down".

Now, if cracking down WORKED, I'd be right there... But, you got to see that it doesn't. Don't you?? Nahhh... You don't. If, after 40 or so years of fighting a losing drug war by "cracking down" every year or two, and you still think we ain't cracked down enough, then I don't hold out any hope for you in this context.

excon

[tomder55]

And you see jihadism as a vast popular movement . I see it as fringe in the Muslim world and what I see is that wherever jihadism rules they rule by fear and intimidation.
The reason the surge in Iraq worked was because the jihadists were worse than we could be on our worse day.

Last week the Taliban could not target the political and military targets they planned ;so they bombed a game of volley ball that resulted in over 100 deaths .

The people in Iran now have taken to the streets by the millions to battle the revolutionaries who led them in the 1980 takeover .

We are not against the people and I think most of the people there realize it.

[tomder55]

While I lament the loss of ANY American fighter's life, the attack was ANYTHING but senseless. The CIA DOES bomb people from that base. Unless you ARE totally disconnected, you couldn't use the word "senseless" in describing this particular attack.

You are right that the Khost base was a legit target . Where you got the story wrong is who attacked us there . This was not an attack by the Taliban. It was an attack by AQ on a CIA post that does indeed attack them specifically (as opposed to the general term "people" ) and conduct operations against AQ from FOB Chapman .

The specifics ; a Jordanian asset named Humam Khalil al-Balawi from Zarqa, Jordan, a Jordanian doctor (again not that poverty class that everyone claims is a breeding ground for jihadists ) volunteered to infiltrate AQ in Waziristan .He provided accurate information on the whereabouts of lower-level AQ operatives and because of that ,he gained the trust of the CIA to a point that he was able to enter the base without the ususal security checks.
But he was in fact a double agent .AQ fitted him with the suicide belt .

If there is anything senseless in this attack,it is that the base let it's guard down.