Score one for the good guys

[BobD]

It's about motive. I'm not excusing anything, way to deflect away from the point though. Killing people is killing people, but not paying attention to what is inciting this hatred is sophomoric. You can't have it both ways. When we do it it's necessary and for the good of the world, but when others do it to us it's terrorism. That's what we call a double standard, and in the military, we set high standards, not double standards.

Did you read that list? Please do. I realize I'm telling hard truths here, but they are truth. We create terrorists, and you should read everything I've put on here. Our own 9-11 Commission Report and the CIA have said as much. Don't try and attack my character because you can't beat my argument. I've served my country honorably, and I love my country. That's why I have the strong feelings I do, because I've lived this, much more than most. Don't you want to know why countries hate us enough to try and kill our citizens? It's not like they just woke up and went, I'm gonna kill Americans today. They've been living for 50+ years under our policies and watching us meddle in their affairs and kill their citizens. You think people won't respond in kind?

I'm not trying to attack your character, I respect your right to have an opposing opinion and I'm pretty sure your a good guy that I'd sit down and have a beer with.

You have to realize, no matter what we do, we can't make everyone happy, even within our own country, we're always going to have someone with their panties in a bunch because they don't like whats going on. Appease one, pis$ off the other, thats the way it goes. Nobody has the right or a good excuse to go around killing civilians.

 

[mgriff]

I'm not trying to attack your character, I respect your right to have an opposing opinion and I'm pretty sure your a good guy that I'd sit down and have a beer with.

You have to realize, no matter what we do, we can't make everyone happy, even within our own country, we're always going to have someone with their panties in a bunch because they don't like whats going on. Appease one, pis$ off the other, thats the way it goes. Nobody has the right or a good excuse to go around killing civilians.

But that's what I'm trying to tell you! We have been doing it in the Islamic world, is that justified? It's okay when we do it because we have some moral high ground from WWII that we have completely lost since then? They view us as the terrorists in the other parts of the world, and if we stopped our aggressive, invasive foreign policy, we could sit down with all of these countries who hate us and work at repairing our relations. You can't think that all this war is a positive for anyone? Knowing and understanding your enemies is critical. You have to find out what motivates them and it's us.

I don't want to make them happy, I want to make them not hate us enough to attack and kill our civilians. We can only do that by understanding the enemy. Our foreign policy is detracting from our national security when the talking heads say it's keeping us safe. It's counterproductive. Honestly, read what I've put in here, it's eye opening. I was the same way when I joined the military. Then when you become a part of it you start to dig beneath the surface and find out it's rotten. I'm sorry but we are not the America of WWII anymore. We are trying desperately to keep our unipolarity.

 

[WaveDomer]

As pointed out in The Looming Tower, AQ is different in scope than other terrorist orgs. One of the driving factors behind AQ was the theory that real Islam is incompatible with the modern world. That doesn't have a ton to do with the United States bombing here or there.

But if you take OBL at his word, and his praise for Scheuer's book (one on your list), you have to realize it is at odds with much of what has happened. The United States has a presence in the Middle East, and OBL has used that as an excuse. But why is there a presence? They are there because they pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and saved Muslims, the US backed Muslims against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and helped Muslims in Bosnia. Even if you take Iraq as an example, the US military presence in Iraq has gotten rid of Saddam who attacked and terrorized his own people. So on balance, one could argue that the US in the Middle East has been good and pro-Muslim. Scheuer also contradicts himself from one book to the other in terms of Iraq supporting terrorism. He is also pretty anti-Israel and likes conspiracy theories about how Israel really controls the U.S. (his one about the Holocaust Museum creating guilt among Americans is a particularly good one.)

And the Pape book also has its critics.

I think there is a place to talk about reducing our role in the world. However, I don't think it's entirely true that AQ targets us because of our actions in the Middle East. I do think that men like Zawahiri and OBL used propaganda to push that idea on others to get them to fight.

 

[mgriff]

All you lurkers:

 

[scUM Hater]

Get rid of religion and alot of this stuff would stop. Uh Oh, I just stirred the pot.

 

[mgriff]

As pointed out in The Looming Tower, AQ is different in scope than other terrorist orgs. One of the driving factors behind AQ was the theory that real Islam is incompatible with the modern world. That doesn't have a ton to do with the United States bombing here or there.

But if you take OBL at his word, and his praise for Scheuer's book (one on your list), you have to realize it is at odds with much of what has happened. The United States has a presence in the Middle East, and OBL has used that as an excuse. But why is there a presence? They are there because they pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and saved Muslims, the US backed Muslims against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and helped Muslims in Bosnia. Even if you take Iraq as an example, the US military presence in Iraq has gotten rid of Saddam who attacked and terrorized his own people. So on balance, one could argue that the US in the Middle East has been good and pro-Muslim. Scheuer also contradicts himself from one book to the other in terms of Iraq supporting terrorism. He is also pretty anti-Israel and likes conspiracy theories about how Israel really controls the U.S. (his one about the Holocaust Museum creating guilt among Americans is a particularly good one.)

And the Pape book also has its critics.

I think there is a place to talk about reducing our role in the world. However, I don't think it's entirely true that AQ targets us because of our actions in the Middle East. I do think that men like Zawahiri and OBL used propaganda to push that idea on others to get them to fight.

The 9-11 Commission Report explicitly states, the findings of our own government, that our actions in the Islamic world were the cause of the attacks on America. We did save Kuwait, and then what did we do for ten years in Iraq after the Gulf War? We bombed them for a decade and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We propped up Mubarak so he wouldn't attack Israel, and he was just as much a dictator. So it's okay that we pick and choose who is evil from decade to decade? As you've stated, we once were allies with Saddam and Al Qaeda. Some good doesn't wash out the bad either.

OBL and the others have a much easier time recruiting when they can point to our presence in Saudi Arabia, their Holy Land, what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course there are critics, but the vast majority are from think-tanks who are CEOs and members of defense contractors who have seen profit increases of %500 sicne the war started. Those same think tanks sit on the CFR and advise our congressman the best course of action. Those Congressman also have stock in these contractors, so that at the very least is a gross conflict of interest.

 

[NDBoiler]

But that's what I'm trying to tell you! We have been doing it in the Islamic world, is that justified? It's okay when we do it because we have some moral high ground from WWII that we completely have lost since then? They view us as the terrorists in the other parts of the world, and if we stopped our aggressive, invasive foreign policy, we could sit down with all of these countries who hate us and work at repairing our relations. You can't think that all this war is a positive for anyone? Knowing and understanding your enemies is critical. You have to find out what motivates them and it's us.

I don't want to make them happy, I want to make them not hate us enough to attack and kill our civilians. We can only do that by understanding the enemy. Our foreign policy is detracting from our national security when the talking heads say it's keeping us safe. It's counterproductive. Honestly, read what I've put in here, it's eye opening. I was the same way when I joined the military. Then when you become a part of it you start to dig beneath the surface and find out it's rotten. I'm sorry but we are not the America of WWII anymore. We are trying desperately to keep our unipolarity.

Mgriff,
I understand your thinking here and it is truly laudable, but I also think the issue is this is simply not realistic. Let's say for the sake of this debate we removed all military personnel from all foreign soils tomorrow. Do you still honestly think that people who consistently threaten the US and its allies will simply say "Golly gee that's swell, now we can go about our lives without a care in peace and harmony"? Iran for example, has been well documented in expressing its desire to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. Al Qaida has also been well documented in expressing it wants to establish its perversion of Islam across the Mideast region and elsewhere as its' primary objective (hence its attacks on several countries that are primarily Muslim and whose foreign policies are by no means aggressive in dealing with outside threats). I'd glady be the first to say this is the way I wish everyone would act and just get along, but I can wish all I want and it is not going to change an extremist's mind. It's a terrible way to look at it, but the bottom line is we have to take action to eliminate threats before they take action to eliminate us and our allies. Sure, there will be more to come, but just as sure we need to be as proactive as possible in defense.

 

[mgriff]

As pointed out in The Looming Tower, AQ is different in scope than other terrorist orgs. One of the driving factors behind AQ was the theory that real Islam is incompatible with the modern world. That doesn't have a ton to do with the United States bombing here or there.

But if you take OBL at his word, and his praise for Scheuer's book (one on your list), you have to realize it is at odds with much of what has happened. The United States has a presence in the Middle East, and OBL has used that as an excuse. But why is there a presence? They are there because they pushed Iraq out of Kuwait and saved Muslims, the US backed Muslims against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and helped Muslims in Bosnia. Even if you take Iraq as an example, the US military presence in Iraq has gotten rid of Saddam who attacked and terrorized his own people. So on balance, one could argue that the US in the Middle East has been good and pro-Muslim. Scheuer also contradicts himself from one book to the other in terms of Iraq supporting terrorism. He is also pretty anti-Israel and likes conspiracy theories about how Israel really controls the U.S. (his one about the Holocaust Museum creating guilt among Americans is a particularly good one.)

And the Pape book also has its critics.

I think there is a place to talk about reducing our role in the world. However, I don't think it's entirely true that AQ targets us because of our actions in the Middle East. I do think that men like Zawahiri and OBL used propaganda to push that idea on others to get them to fight.

The 9-11 Commission Report explicitly states, the findings of our own government, that our actions in the Islamic world were the cause of the attacks on America. We did save Kuwait, and then what did we do for ten years in Iraq after the Gulf War? We bombed them for a decade and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We propped up Mubarak so he wouldn't attack Israel, and he was just as much a dictator. So it's okay that we pick and choose who is evil from decade to decade? As you've stated, we once were allies with Saddam and Al Qaeda. Some good doesn't wash out the bad either.

OBL and the others have a much easier time recruiting when they can point to our presence in Saudi Arabia, their Holy Land, what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course there are critics, but the vast majority are from think-tanks who are CEOs and members of defense contractors who have seen profit increases of %500 sicne the war started. Those same think tanks sit on the CFR and advise our congressman the best course of action. Those Congressman also have stock in these contractors, so that at the very least is a gross conflict of interest.

I wasn't aware that it was our position to destroy every terrible leader in the world. Why do we invade Saddam but prop up others? Why do we ignore genocide in Darfur? And if we want to save the most people, shouldn't we liberate China, who oppresses and murders the most people by sheer numbers alone? I mean, where does it end? I'm not saying we are evil, just that our actions are easily viewed as evil by those we sanction or bomb. They lead to deaths and that inspires terrorism.

 

[NDBoiler]

The 9-11 Commission Report explicitly states, the findings of our own government, that our actions in the Islamic world were the cause of the attacks on America. We did save Kuwait, and then what did we do for ten years in Iraq after the Gulf War? We bombed them for a decade and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We propped up Mubarak so he wouldn't attack Israel, and he was just as much a dictator. So it's okay that we pick and choose who is evil from decade to decade? As you've stated, we once were allies with Saddam and Al Qaeda. Some good doesn't wash out the bad either.

OBL and the others have a much easier time recruiting when they can point to our presence in Saudi Arabia, their Holy Land, what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course there are critics, but the vast majority are from think-tanks who are CEOs and members of defense contractors who have seen profit increases of %500 sicne the war started. Those same think tanks sit on the CFR and advise our congressman the best course of action. Those Congressman also have stock in these contractors, so that at the very least is a gross conflict of interest.

I wasn't aware that it was our position to destroy every terrible leader in the world. Why do we invade Saddam but prop up others? Why do we ignore genocide in Darfur? And if we want to save the most people, shouldn't we liberate China, who oppresses and murders the most people by sheer numbers alone? I mean, where does it end? I'm not saying we are evil, just that our actions are easily viewed as evil by those we sanction or bomb. They lead to deaths and that inspires terrorism.

Because that is asking for WWIII.

 

[mgriff]

Mgriff,
I understand your thinking here and it is truly laudable, but I also think the issue is this is simply not realistic. Let's say for the sake of this debate we removed all military personnel from all foreign soils tomorrow. Do you still honestly think that people who consistently threaten the US and its allies will simply say "Golly gee that's swell, now we can go about our lives without a care in peace and harmony"? Iran for example, has been well documented in expressing its desire to wipe Isreal off the face of the earth. Al Qaida has also been well documented in expressing it wants to establish its perversion of Islam across the Mideast region and elsewhere as its' primary objective (hence its attacks on several countries that are primarily Muslim and whose foreign policies are by no means aggressive in dealing with outside threats). I'd glady be the first to say this is the way I wish everyone would act and just get along, but I can wish all I want and it is not going to change an extremist's mind. It's a terrible way to look at it, but the bottom line is we have to take action to eliminate threats before they take action to eliminate us and our allies. Sure, there will be more to come, but just as sure we need to be as proactive as possible in defense.

You repair relations, by that logic we should have never accepted Germany back into the West. I fail to see how the solution is to bomb/invade/sanction more countries, because we are dooming our own national security as we go along. Not to mention the effect it's having on our troops. Go back through this thread and see that our troops are committing suicide at a rate of 18 a day. The PTSD medication has "suicide" listed as a side effect. It's not our job to police the world and conduct preemptive war. All that gets us is more enemies.

By proactive you mean an aggressive and invasive foreign policy I assume. You don't just immediately move all your resources out, it's a withdrawal, like from a country. We keep critical security points for a time, but we start pulling out as a show of good faith. That's what these people want, to stop living under the oppression of American foreign policy and whim. They don't hate us because we are free, they hate us because of what we do. We need to fix ourselves as well. We can't just except everyone to always accommodate us.

 

[NDBoiler]

That is also why we have tried to be more diplomatic with Nk and Iran, because as somewhat civilized sovreign nations, there is some room for diplomacy to a degree. can;t really do that with a terrorist netowrk that is spread out over countless countries.

 

[mgriff]

That is also why we have tried to be more diplomatic with Nk and Iran, because as somewhat civilized sovreign nations, there is some room for diplomacy to a degree. can;t really do that with a terrorist netowrk that is spread out over countless countries.

So we get to pick and choose who is bad and who is tolerable? And we wonder why people want nuclear weapons? Nuclear weapons keeps countries safe from our ever changing positions. Saddam was a dictator when we backed him, but then we left him in power in the Gulf War, to invade in '03? I mean, where is the method to the madness? That comment right there is the reason why small rogue nations want nuclear weapons, because if they have one, we won't invade. Look at North Korea. Gaddafi, gone, Saddam, gone. Kim Jong Il's line and his son? Still there, why? Because they have nukes. Our foreign policy frightens other nations. If we disagree with you we might just invade and destroy your country. Under Bush we praised Gaddafi as an example because he gave up his nuclear weapons program to assimilate with the West. The very next administration we were a part of the coalition that overthrew him. It's madness and only compounds our national security problems. We may view our western democracy as the best, but other cultures disagree. We can't simply try and westernize the world and expect people to happily go along.

 

[WaveDomer]

The 9-11 Commission Report explicitly states, the findings of our own government, that our actions in the Islamic world were the cause of the attacks on America. We did save Kuwait, and then what did we do for ten years in Iraq after the Gulf War? We bombed them for a decade and killed hundreds of thousands of people. We propped up Mubarak so he wouldn't attack Israel, and he was just as much a dictator. So it's okay that we pick and choose who is evil from decade to decade? As you've stated, we once were allies with Saddam and Al Qaeda. Some good doesn't wash out the bad either.

OBL and the others have a much easier time recruiting when they can point to our presence in Saudi Arabia, their Holy Land, what we've done in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course there are critics, but the vast majority are from think-tanks who are CEOs and members of defense contractors who have seen profit increases of %500 sicne the war started. Those same think tanks sit on the CFR and advise our congressman the best course of action. Those Congressman also have stock in these contractors, so that at the very least is a gross conflict of interest.

I'm not picking and choosing. I'm saying it's not clear cut on any side. Your book list has a book from a conspiracy nut (Scheuer), a book by Pape, which while a good study, leaves out many statistics that some say skewed his findings, and then the 9/11 Commission Report, which also has detractors. It's not like you can read those books and then come to a cut and dry conclusion. That was my point. Especially when you take into account Sayyid Qutb and Zawahiri and their history. And if you say the bad we have done in the ME is the cause, then what about the good? Nothing happens in a vacuum and things are constantly in flux. Even if we weren't in the ME, men like OBL would do what they could do to get what they wanted.

I don't outright disagree with you, but I just don't think it's that simple. And I think one of our issues is that we think it's simple. I think much of the cause for war in Iraq was belief in the Democratic Peace Theory, but is that theory fitting for the ME? Just an example of complexity.

I'm not even going to get into a conversation on conspiracies surrounding the Council on Foreign Relations. Tom Brokaw is on the Board of Directors. Conspiracy can be found almost anywhere if you want to find them. And Pape's detractors were mainly professors: Princeton and Rice, among others.

 

[mgriff]

I'm not picking and choosing. I'm saying it's not clear cut on any side. Your book list has a book from a conspiracy nut (Scheuer), a book by Pape, which while a good study, leaves out many statistics that some say skewed his findings, and then the 9/11 Commission Report, which also has detractors. It's not like you can read those books and then come to a cut and dry conclusion. That was my point. Especially when you take into account Sayyid Qutb and Zawahiri and their history. And if you say the bad we have done in the ME is the cause, then what about the good? Nothing happens in a vacuum and things are constantly in flux. Even if we weren't in the ME, men like OBL would do what they could do to get what they wanted.

I don't outright disagree with you, but I just don't think it's that simple. And I think one of our issues is that we think it's simple. I think much of the cause for war in Iraq was belief in the Democratic Peace Theory, but is that theory fitting for the ME? Just an example of complexity.

I'm not even going to get into a conversation on conspiracies surrounding the Council on Foreign Relations. Tom Brokaw is on the Board of Directors. Conspiracy can be found almost anywhere if you want to find them. And Pape's detractors were mainly professors: Princeton and Rice, among others.

I didn't say conspiracy, I said conflict of interest. It's not deniable, they make money from war, that's what defense contractors do. Their profits have increased since the war on terror and no one wants to lose free government money. Some members of our Congress also have stock in these same contractors. That is a fact, and a conflict of interest. I certainly don't want to believe that people would send us off to war for money, but the evidence points that way. Again, hard truths.

Al Qaeda is looney tunes, fine. But the average "terrorist" is not a jihadist, it's a person fighting against occupation and perceived wrongs by us to their country/family. They assimilate into the crazies much easier when there is evidence that the Americans invaded their country/bombed/killed a family member. That's what I'm getting at. The impetus for the creation of Al Qaeda was/is our foreign policy. OBL wanted foreign powers out of the Middle East and off Islamic holy land. Is he insane? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean his motives are any less measurable. We can clearly see that our policy of preemptive war and airstrikes into numerous other countries violating their sovereignty is not the solution. We are making more enemies. So I don't think we need to continue it when it doesn't work at the cost of American lives, foreign lives, and trillions of dollars. We are going to destroy our own country in the process.

That conspiracy theorist was the Chief of the Bin ***** unit. I'd say he knows more than you or I after studying him for years. You can't really just call him a conspiracy nut and throw out his credentials. He served in the CIA for 22 years. That's quite a service to the country.

 

[irishbird]

Make the middle east a glass parking lot. Problem == solved. Then erect the worlds biggest Walmart!

So, you want kill millions baby and kids?

 

[NDBoiler]

You repair relations, by that logic we should have never accepted Germany back into the West. I fail to see how the solution is to bomb/invade/sanction more countries, because we are dooming our own national security as we go along. Not to mention the effect it's having on our troops. Go back through this thread and see that our troops are committing suicide at a rate of 18 a day. The PTSD medication has "suicide" listed as a side effect. It's not our job to police the world and conduct preemptive war. All that gets us is more enemies.

By proactive you mean an aggressive and invasive foreign policy I assume. You don't just immediately move all your resources out, it's a withdrawal, like from a country. We keep critical security points for a time, but we start pulling out as a show of good faith. That's what these people want, to stop living under the oppression of American foreign policy and whim. They don't hate us because we are free, they hate us because of what we do. We need to fix ourselves as well. We can't just except everyone to always accommodate us.

Germany's power structure was completely removed and the country was ruled by basically the US military for years after they surrendered after WWII. Essentially, it accelerated the Cold War as the struggle for control of Germany unfolded between the US and Soviet Union, so I don't necessarily see that as a shining example of repairing relations. Germany was also a sovregn nation.

Now I am not trying to belittle this issue, as it is a very serious one indeed, but what was your source for the 18 suicides per day you refer to? I googled military suicide rates and that number seems more accurate for a period of a month or more, not per day. Again, I am not trying to belittle this very serious issue, just trying to make sure the facts are accurate.

After I posted my previous comment, I realized that it could be interpreted as "proactive war". That was not my intention. What I intended to communicate was that I think we need to act on information we have when we can so as to prevent future attacks instead of sitting back and hoping our enemies are not "acting like our enemies".

 

[Grahambo]

So, you want kill millions baby and kids?

This shouldn't be dignified with an answer, even though I just did.

 

[mgriff]

Germany's power structure was completely removed and the country was ruled by basically the US military for years after they surrendered after WWII. Essentially, it accelerated the Cold War as the struggle for control of Germany unfolded between the US and Soviet Union, so I don't necessarily see that as a shining example of repairing relations. Germany was also a sovregn nation.

Now I am not trying to belittle this issue, as it is a very serious one indeed, but what was your source for the 18 suicides per day you refer to? I googled military suicide rates and that number seems more accurate for a period of a month or more, not per day. Again, I am not trying to belittle this very serious issue, just trying to make sure the facts are accurate.

After I posted my previous comment, I realized that it could be interpreted as "proactive war". That was not my intention. What I intended to communicate was that I think we need to act on information we have when we can so as to prevent future attacks instead of sitting back and hoping our enemies are not "acting like our enemies".

Does your logic include bombing other countries without their express consent? Because if it does you know collateral damage happens. That creates even more terrorists to combat the few in existence. It's counterproductive.

We occupied Germany after a World War, and for four years! It's been ten+ in Afghanistan and almost ten in Iraq! They are no where near the threat of Germany in World War II. Now we are fretting about third world countries and invading and occupying them!

18 veterans commit suicide each day - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

PolitiFact New Jersey | Rush Holt says 18 veterans commit suicide daily

But we'll talk about the NFL because Seau commits suicide. What about the heroes of this country. It's clearly having a negative impact on our service men and women.

 

[phork]

Those countries don't hate us for our way of life, what are you, five? They sit over there hating people in a far off land for no reason? That's a very immature comment. As I said, they hate us because of our foreign policy, sanctions, and bombings on targets in the Middle East for 50+ years. You know we overthrew the elected government of Iran because the new leader was not pro-West and wanted oil profits to go to Iran and not to foreign companies, right?

Amazon.com: Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (9781400063178): Robert Pape: Books
Read this book and come talk to me

They hate us because their leaders tell them to hate us. They hate us because illiteracy rates are well into the 90% range. They hate us because they don't know any better.

 

[Grahambo]

Germany's power structure was completely removed and the country was ruled by basically the US military for years after they surrendered after WWII. Essentially, it accelerated the Cold War as the struggle for control of Germany unfolded between the US and Soviet Union, so I don't necessarily see that as a shining example of repairing relations. Germany was also a sovregn nation.

Now I am not trying to belittle this issue, as it is a very serious one indeed, but what was your source for the 18 suicides per day you refer to? I googled military suicide rates and that number seems more accurate for a period of a month or more, not per day. Again, I am not trying to belittle this very serious issue, just trying to make sure the facts are accurate.
After I posted my previous comment, I realized that it could be interpreted as "proactive war". That was not my intention. What I intended to communicate was that I think we need to act on information we have when we can so as to prevent future attacks instead of sitting back and hoping our enemies are not "acting like our enemies".

That is what we do. In regards to your last sentence.

 

[WaveDomer]

That conspiracy theorist was the Chief of the Bin ***** unit. I'd say he knows more than you or I after studying him for years. You can't really just call him a conspiracy nut and throw out his credentials.

Yeah, I can. I don't disagree that he worked on the Bin ***** unit. But he spouts conspiracy garbage. In fact, he spouted the one about the Holocaust Museum to the CFR. If you don't want your work to be discounted, don't say things like Israel is involved in “probably the most successful covert-action program in the history of man.” And then talk about how they want to control our policy and political debate. He threw out his own credentials, didn't need help from me.

 

[mgriff]

They hate us because their leaders tell them to hate us. They hate us because illiteracy rates are well into the 90% range. They hate us because they don't know any better.

Wow is that ignorant. They don't have a western education so they must be completely stupid. I'm sure they can see that the U.S. sanctions, bombings, and invasions have a negative impact on their country and families. They all don't hate us, but every time we kill a civilian, we've made terrorists of their families. They don't know any better, gimme a break, they are uneducated, not stupid. Their culture is different from ours, but occupations by foreign powers are the same in both cultures. They are met with resistance and more war. How many Afghans or Iraqis have you met?

 

[mgriff]

Yeah, I can. I don't disagree that he worked on the Bin ***** unit. But he spouts conspiracy garbage. In fact, he spouted the one about the Holocaust Museum to the CFR. If you don't want your work to be discounted, don't say things like Israel is involved in “probably the most successful covert-action program in the history of man.” And then talk about how they want to control our policy and political debate. He threw out his own credentials, didn't need help from me.

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt · The Israel Lobby: the Israel Lobby · LRB 23 March 2006

We do treat Israel much differently than any other country in the world. Why? This is from '06 when they were lobbying for regime change in Syria. What are we doing now? We are posturing, we haven't committed anything, but we helped in Libya.

Furthermore, where are the museums for the genocides in Rwanda and the countless others in history? Many are more recent yet get none of the coverage. It was terrible, but was it more terrible than the others? Darfur is happening right now. We aren't doing a damn thing about that one. Israel is treated differently, absolutely.

 

[IrishInFl]

Don't you just love the off-season?

 

[IrishInFl]

I didn't say conspiracy, I said conflict of interest. It's not deniable, they make money from war, that's what defense contractors do. Their profits have increased since the war on terror and no one wants to lose free government money. Some members of our Congress also have stock in these same contractors. That is a fact, and a conflict of interest. I certainly don't want to believe that people would send us off to war for money, but the evidence points that way. Again, hard truths.

Al Qaeda is looney tunes, fine. But the average "terrorist" is not a jihadist, it's a person fighting against occupation and perceived wrongs by us to their country/family. They assimilate into the crazies much easier when there is evidence that the Americans invaded their country/bombed/killed a family member. That's what I'm getting at. The impetus for the creation of Al Qaeda was/is our foreign policy. OBL wanted foreign powers out of the Middle East and off Islamic holy land. Is he insane? Absolutely, but that doesn't mean his motives are any less measurable. We can clearly see that our policy of preemptive war and airstrikes into numerous other countries violating their sovereignty is not the solution. We are making more enemies. So I don't think we need to continue it when it doesn't work at the cost of American lives, foreign lives, and trillions of dollars. We are going to destroy our own country in the process.

That conspiracy theorist was the Chief of the Bin ***** unit. I'd say he knows more than you or I after studying him for years. You can't really just call him a conspiracy nut and throw out his credentials. He served in the CIA for 22 years. That's quite a service to the country.

 

[mgriff]

Once I saw you in here I knew it was coming. Haha

 

[irishpat183]

One of my first bosses once told me "Being right isn't always enough." He was right. Sometimes you are best off eating a sh!t sandwich instead of throwing it back in someone's face. Our collective ego got us into a mess and our collective "conscience" won't let us approach the "war" properly. Isreal would (will) hit and run when the time comes. They won't hang around to sing kumbia and try to get everyone to like them. Ain't going to happen so stop trying!

Now consider if we had given each of the 3000 (or so) 911 victim families $100 million each and then spend another $200 billion on rebuilding NYC ASAP we would only be halfway to the $1 trillion spent on the wars. Economically speaking, turning the other cheek kicks some serious arse.

So Mr. President. Should we spend $500 billion here in the US or $1 trillion overseas and more than triple the body count to US citizens? Actually, since I am cheap I would only give victims $10 million and cut my cost in half.

And I would de-fund the United Nations and all foreign aid, especially food and medical "relief" and "aid." Let the rest of the world actually see how awful we are for a few years. That is what biting the hand that feeds you should get.

AMEN...

 

[WaveDomer]

John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt · The Israel Lobby: the Israel Lobby · LRB 23 March 2006

We do treat Israel much differently than any other country in the world. Why? This is from '06 when they were lobbying for regime change in Syria. What are we doing now?

MGriff, that paper might be even more controversial than Scheuer's books. And it's another one that OBL endorsed.

 

[NDBoiler]

Wow is that ignorant. They don't have a western education so they must be completely stupid. I'm sure they can see that the U.S. sanctions, bombings, and invasions have a negative impact on their country and families. They all don't hate us, but every time we kill a civilian, we've made terrorists of their families. They don't know any better, gimme a break, they are uneducated, not stupid. Their culture is different from ours, but occupations by foreign powers are the same in both cultures. They are met with resistance and more war. How many Afghans or Iraqis have you met?

I'm not condoning phork's comments per se, but by the same token in the statement highlighted above, when they kill US civilians, haven't they done the same thing to us, yet we don't see US citizens strapping suicide vests and detonating them in crowded civilian spaces or flying commercial airplanes into buildings? No, because we choose to act with our professional military means, doing everything possible to minimize civilian casualties and only seek to eliminate those who bear weapons (i.e rules of engagement). Heck, we even have bombs that are intended to only explode into a confined area so adjacent buildings don't get damaged. Talk about eliminating "blowback"! No other nation comes close to our miliatry in trying to be as surgical as possible to protect innocent civilians. So much so it's built into our military weapons research and design.

 

[irishpat183]

Those countries don't hate us for our way of life, what are you, five? They sit over there hating people in a far off land for no reason? That's a very immature comment. As I said, they hate us because of our foreign policy, sanctions, and bombings on targets in the Middle East for 50+ years. You know we overthrew the elected government of Iran because the new leader was not pro-West and wanted oil profits to go to Iran and not to foreign companies, right?

Amazon.com: Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (9781400063178): Robert Pape: Books
Read this book and come talk to me

No, I'm 30. But I have great skin.

And I didn't say for "no reason"...I said my reasons. They hate the way we live. They hate our culture. Its deeper than just your "well, we deserve it" reasoning.

Tell you what, why don't you go over there and explain all this to a group of terrorist and it will be all peachy. I'm sure they'll understand and forgive us if we just stop all the violence. Make sure you send me a postcard.