The United States "is not and will never be at war with Islam."

[The Professional Fan]

Nothing is black and white........that's all I have to say.

 

[maxiep]

Nothing is black and white........that's all I have to say.

Well, except for your avatar.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Implied in your second sentence is the idea that the terrorists can be negotiated with. That view is not just naive, but dangerous.

You're talking like "terrorist" is a pre-determined state. It's not. And they CAN be negotiated with. Not everyone we would label a terrorist is a zealot like Osama bin Laden. The majority of them are people whose lives have been adversely affected and are being swayed by zealots to commit acts of violence.

As for taking classes in "conflict resolution", I don't watch Oprah or Dr. Phil.

Typical conservative mindset: getting along is for pansies and housewives. Good show. Very mature.

I have studied negotiation, and I can tell you there's no Zone of Agreement available between our two sides. Therefore the BATNA is to hunt them down and kill them where they live.

I might agree with you if you were talking about the terrorist leaders only. Those people will never be swayed in their thinking, no matter what. But you're talking about going out and killing anyone who is a terrorist, seemingly without considering the fact that that will make more terrorists.

Who is a terrorist? Who gets to decide?

 

[maxiep]

You're talking like "terrorist" is a pre-determined state. It's not. And they CAN be negotiated with. Not everyone we would label a terrorist is a zealot like Osama bin Laden. The majority of them are people whose lives have been adversely affected and are being swayed by zealots to commit acts of violence.

Okay, provide an example of an Islamic terrorist who can be negotiated with. Arafat was offered 98% of what he wanted in Oslo and he still turned it down. And he was considered reasonable. Now you're saying we open a "conflict resolution" dialogue with members of Al Qaeda?

Typical conservative mindset: getting along is for pansies and housewives. Good show. Very mature.

You misread my post. I'm not saying conflict resolution is for pansies; I'm saying that "confict resolution" is an idea that only works in an Oprah worldview where people want to work out their problems. The terrorists want to win, period. Look at it from a Clausewitz point of view--War is an extension of politics by other means. When there's no chance for agreement, then conflict resolution is worthless.

I might agree with you if you were talking about the terrorist leaders only. Those people will never be swayed in their thinking, no matter what. But you're talking about going out and killing anyone who is a terrorist, seemingly without considering the fact that that will make more terrorists.

Who is a terrorist? Who gets to decide?

These are loose networks, but they are networks nevertheless. If you're a member of that network, you're a terrorist. As for who gets to decide, the terrorists do. They can decide which path they choose.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Okay, provide an example of an Islamic terrorist who can be negotiated with.

Perhaps one of the thousands of people in one of the "loose networks" you mention? You really think all of those people that you just labeled as terrorists are zealots who will accept nothing other than victory or death?

Arafat was offered 98% of what he wanted in Oslo and he still turned it down. And he was considered reasonable.

Yeah, that's Arafat, not some Iraqi or Palestinian who joined a terrorist organization because his entire family was killed.

Now you're saying we open a "conflict resolution" dialogue with members of Al Qaeda?

Uh, yeah. That Iraqi or Palestinian joined al-Qaeda out of desperation, not because he is unbending in his fervent hatred of all things western and al-Qaeda was his #1 terrorist organization choice. al-Qaeda has thousands of members, it's not such the prestigious best-of-the-best terrorist organization we make it out to be. Yes, there are those who are ideologically against the west and join terrorist organizations to fight the west. There are MANY others who do so because these organizations act like community resources to war-torn people, and that is how they recruit.

You misread my post. I'm not saying conflict resolution is for pansies; I'm saying that "confict resolution" is an idea that only works in an Oprah worldview where people want to work out their problems. The terrorists want to win, period. Look at it from a Clausewitz point of view--War is an extension of politics by other means. When there's no chance for agreement, then conflict resolution is worthless.

These are loose networks, but they are networks nevertheless. If you're a member of that network, you're a terrorist. As for who gets to decide, the terrorists do. They can decide which path they choose.

I think my main contention with what you're saying is that you're making no distinction between terrorist leaders and ideologues and the people they recruit. The problem with your "loose networks" is that the Middle East is all about networks. It's what they do. If a cousin or an uncle joins al-Qaeda, his entire family isn't going to abandon him or cast him out of the family. They are then in his network, and by your logic, terrorists. All of his friends, and their families are terrorists.

It's not like a terrorist is a shady guy with a mysterious past and no family to speak of and the only people who would ever associate with him are other terrorists. If that were true, then I would agree with you.

 

[maxiep]

Perhaps one of the thousands of people in one of the "loose networks" you mention? You really think all of those people that you just labeled as terrorists are zealots who will accept nothing other than victory or death?

Yep. Paradise awaits them. It's their belief system that's fucked.

Yeah, that's Arafat, not some Iraqi or Palestinian who joined a terrorist organization because his entire family was killed.

Here's your primary error: You believe terrorists are created because of something we did to them and that they wouldn't be terrorists otherwise. We may be the excuse, but these people are looking for any feigned insult to become terrorists. If it wasn't us, it would be the Israelis or the House of Saud or the decandant lifestyle lived in Beirut or Dubai.

Uh, yeah. That Iraqi or Palestinian joined al-Qaeda out of desperation, not because he is unbending in his fervent hatred of all things western and al-Qaeda was his #1 terrorist organization choice. al-Qaeda has thousands of members, it's not such the prestigious best-of-the-best terrorist organization we make it out to be. Yes, there are those who are ideologically against the west and join terrorist organizations to fight the west. There are MANY others who do so because these organizations act like community resources to war-torn people, and that is how they recruit.

Funny, not many member of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were Afghani. They were from other countries who were drawn there as a cause. The same with Iraq. Al Qaeda is like a nutjob magnet.

I think my main contention with what you're saying is that you're making no distinction between terrorist leaders and ideologues and the people they recruit. The problem with your "loose networks" is that the Middle East is all about networks. It's what they do. If a cousin or an uncle joins al-Qaeda, his entire family isn't going to abandon him or cast him out of the family. They are then in his network, and by your logic, terrorists. All of his friends, and their families are terrorists.

It's not like a terrorist is a shady guy with a mysterious past and no family to speak of and the only people who would ever associate with him are other terrorists. If that were true, then I would agree with you.

Completely wrong. The Bin Laden family hasn't joined Al Qaeda; they're still in the construction industry. If you look at the biographies of most terrorists, you'll find they generally are disaffected and socially maladjusted. They're like the kids that shot up Columbine. Madrases and mosques find and cultivate these kids.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Yep. Paradise awaits them. It's their belief system that's fucked.

So for the record, they're all zealots. Everyone in the "loose network" of a terrorist is a terrorist, and you are condoning killing them. Awesome.

Here's your primary error: You believe terrorists are created because of something we did to them and that they wouldn't be terrorists otherwise.

In the case of Iraq, yeah, we were responsible for some of those people turning to terrorism. In the case of Palestine, we weren't.

We may be the excuse, but these people are looking for any feigned insult to become terrorists. If it wasn't us, it would be the Israelis or the House of Saud or the decandant lifestyle lived in Beirut or Dubai.

That may be true for the people with the deep idealogical disagreements with the west and what it stands for, but not for the majority of the people you call "terrorists." You can't seem to get over the fact that the people we call terrorists might be in it for reasons other than irreconcilable and fundamental disagreements over how we live our lives. It sure makes killing them a lot easier to swallow if you paint them that way, doesn't it?

Funny, not many member of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan were Afghani.

That's true. The Afghans were with the Taliban and al-Qaeda was populated at that time mainly by religious zealots. We killed a whole lot of them in 2001.

They were from other countries who were drawn there as a cause.

Right.

The same with Iraq.

Yes and no. While there are always Mujahid, mainly from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who follow al-Qaeda wherever they are currently fighting, most of their members, the ones who are out there every day blowing themselves to pieces, are local recruits. This is true for most terrorist organizations.

Al Qaeda is like a nutjob magnet.

Right.

Completely wrong.

Come on, completely?

The Bin Laden family hasn't joined Al Qaeda; they're still in the construction industry.

The bin Laden family is one of the richest on earth. Do you really think they are going to give up on their fortune and business to follow Osama into the caves of Tora Bora? This is a special case. You are smart enough to know that you can't make a sweeping generalization based on Osama fucking bin Laden.

If you look at the biographies of most terrorists, you'll find they generally are disaffected and socially maladjusted. They're like the kids that shot up Columbine.

The terrorists that have a biography that you could look up are not the terrorists I am talking about.

Madrases and mosques find and cultivate these kids.

I know you're trying not to pull your best Talkhard/Shooter by making wide, sweeping generalizations, so I would probably add "some" or maybe even "a few" in that sentence somewhere.

 

[crandc]

Whenever I have made statements associating Christianity with the evils done in the name of that religion - the Inquisition, Crusades, Holocaust, genocide against native peoples, witch burning, apartheid, Ku Klux Klan, up to the present day of murdering doctors, burning clinics, bombing the Atlanta Olympics and the Fred Phelps hate cult - invariably I am told that I am being unfair. That these people are either a caricature and not true Christianity, or else that I am seeing only one side of Christianity. That Christianity is Martin Luther King and Oskar Schindler as much as it is Torquemada and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

But when the President of the United States suggests that Islam is not just al Qaeda and burning girls' schools, we hear he is a traitor, soft on terror, at "best" naive liberal.

The Christian bible also promises paradise to martyrs. Christianity celebrates its martyrs, starting with Jesus. And there is no lack of intolerance written in the Christian bible.

So tell me. Why are the atrocities in the name of Christianity not truly representative of Christians but the atrocities in the name of Islam really representative of Muslims?

 

[maxiep]

Whenever I have made statements associating Christianity with the evils done in the name of that religion - the Inquisition, Crusades, Holocaust, genocide against native peoples, witch burning, apartheid, Ku Klux Klan, up to the present day of murdering doctors, burning clinics, bombing the Atlanta Olympics and the Fred Phelps hate cult - invariably I am told that I am being unfair. That these people are either a caricature and not true Christianity, or else that I am seeing only one side of Christianity. That Christianity is Martin Luther King and Oskar Schindler as much as it is Torquemada and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

But when the President of the United States suggests that Islam is not just al Qaeda and burning girls' schools, we hear he is a traitor, soft on terror, at "best" naive liberal.

The Christian bible also promises paradise to martyrs. Christianity celebrates its martyrs, starting with Jesus. And there is no lack of intolerance written in the Christian bible.

So tell me. Why are the atrocities in the name of Christianity not truly representative of Christians but the atrocities in the name of Islam really representative of Muslims?

I'm sorry, but what the fuck? Did you even read this thread? EVERYONE is saying, "of course we're not at war with Islam. We're at war with Islamist extremists and terrorists." Do the actual posts even matter to you or are you just on your own unstoppable jihad of hate?

 

[maxiep]

So for the record, they're all zealots. Everyone in the "loose network" of a terrorist is a terrorist, and you are condoning killing them. Awesome.

Re-read my post. Yes, if you've decided to become a member of Al-Qaeda, you're a zealot. And unlike eager members of the SS, these people are true believers with a messianic view of their actions.

In the case of Iraq, yeah, we were responsible for some of those people turning to terrorism. In the case of Palestine, we weren't.

That may be true for the people with the deep idealogical disagreements with the west and what it stands for, but not for the majority of the people you call "terrorists." You can't seem to get over the fact that the people we call terrorists might be in it for reasons other than irreconcilable and fundamental disagreements over how we live our lives. It sure makes killing them a lot easier to swallow if you paint them that way, doesn't it?

And members of Al Qaeda and Wahhabists have at their core--using your words--an irreconcilable and fundamental disagreement over how we live our lives. I don't care how others live their lives, as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process. They care how we live our lives because they see us as polluting their culture and living the lives of infidels, therefore we must be killed. If that's their stance, I'm happy to send them off early to hang with their 72 virgins.

That's true. The Afghans were with the Taliban and al-Qaeda was populated at that time mainly by religious zealots. We killed a whole lot of them in 2001.

The Taliban not only were one of the most repressive regimes on earth, but they allowed Al Qaeda to create their own government within Afghanistan. Therefore, they had to go. The world is a better place with them gone.

Yes and no. While there are always Mujahid, mainly from Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, who follow al-Qaeda wherever they are currently fighting, most of their members, the ones who are out there every day blowing themselves to pieces, are local recruits. This is true for most terrorist organizations.

And you don't think that both the designers of the terrorist acts and the ones that strap bombs to themselves shouldn't be killed before they have time to act? We'll agree to disagree.

The bin Laden family is one of the richest on earth. Do you really think they are going to give up on their fortune and business to follow Osama into the caves of Tora Bora? This is a special case. You are smart enough to know that you can't make a sweeping generalization based on Osama fucking bin Laden.

Okay, show that the vast majority of families of terrorist masterminds share the belief systems of the terrorists they spawn. Mohammed Atta's family had no idea what he was up to. They thought he was still in Hamburg. There's a reason why terrorists videotape their last will and testament--it's a way of letting their families know what they're planning to do. In other words, most of them hide their beliefs from their family members.

The terrorists that have a biography that you could look up are not the terrorists I am talking about.

Your definition of terrorist then is clearly off.

I know you're trying not to pull your best Talkhard/Shooter by making wide, sweeping generalizations, so I would probably add "some" or maybe even "a few" in that sentence somewhere.

Ah, I love this tactic. Your supposition is that all terrorists would grow daisies and go on a hugathon if only we wouldn't bother them, and I'm the one making generalizations.

 

[BrianFromWA]

IIRC, most of the world crusaded (yes, I'm using that deliberately) at various times against those who practiced apartheid, crusaded against the KKK, stood up against those who were committing genocide, etc. I'm not going to defend the Inquisition.

I'm with you (and the President, it seems) that Islam is not al-Qaeda and involuntary pre-teen girls' circumcision. But I think every one of us, Christian or not, is required to take a stand when a political leader (and his followers) say things like "Death to America" and

Our dear Imam (referring to Ayatollah Khomeini) said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world.[2]

Ahmadinejad also claimed in the speech that the issue with Palestine would be over "the day that all refugees return to their homes [and] a democratic government elected by the people comes to power",[3] and denounced attempts to normalise relations with Israel, condemning all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

. Do we speak out against genocide in Darfur? We get into a tizzy when a talk radio shock jock calls basketball players a derogatory name, or a man resisting arrest is beaten too much.. Why is it ok for the President to downplay that in the name of repairing relations or whatever we're now calling it?

It seems (though I'm giving him the benefit of the early doubt) that he's using Neville Chamberlain's appeasement playbook from 1938/39, and no one around his Trust Circle seems to be helping him with it or critiquing him on it. I'm personally rooting for him to show a bit more backbone, or arrogance, or "Big Stick" or whatever you want to call it...my life gets much more dangerous when playing soldier on the defensive.

 

[crandc]

Hey Brian, since you unlike others at least sound serious, I would seriously suggest you do a bit of research on who Chamberlain was and what he did.

 

[BrianFromWA]

I don't know much, and it was only wikipedia confirmed before posting. I'll make sure to do that. Here's the general gist of where I was going...

Chamberlain was committed to peace. The theory was that dictatorships arose where peoples had grievances, and that by removing the source of these grievances, the dictatorship would become less aggressive. It was a popular belief that the Treaty of Versailles was the underlying cause of Adolf Hitler's grievances. Chamberlain, as even his political detractors admitted, was an honourable man, raised in the old school of European politics. His attempts to deal with Nazi Germany through diplomatic channels and to quell any sign of dissent from within, particularly from Churchill, were called by Chamberlain "The general policy of appeasement" (30 June 1934).

I'm not saying he wasn't honorable, or intelligent. My perceptions (formed in mostly ignorance, I'll admit...I've studied much more about the War in the Pacific than in late-30's Europe) are that he was a bit naive in thinking he could just be nice to Hitler and Hitler would be good. That's the direct parallel I was drawing to the President today.
Were you talking about his whole life, or certain parts in particular?

 

[maxiep]

I don't know much, and it was only wikipedia confirmed before posting. I'll make sure to do that. Here's the general gist of where I was going...


I'm not saying he wasn't honorable, or intelligent. My perceptions (formed in mostly ignorance, I'll admit...I've studied much more about the War in the Pacific than in late-30's Europe) are that he was a bit naive in thinking he could just be nice to Hitler and Hitler would be good. That's the direct parallel I was drawing to the President today.

Were you talking about his whole life, or certain parts in particular?

Brian, you've hit the nail on the head. Appeasement would work if there were actual grievances that could be worked out and solved to mutual satisfaction. Chamberlain was acting in what he thought was Britian's best interests, just like President Obama is right now. They were/are both intelligent, honorable men. The problem was Hitler had a plan and nothing was going to stop him from achieving it. He played Chamberlain, just like Obama is being played by other world leaders who know they can't defeat the US, so the best way to achieve their aims is to let the US defeat itself.

 

[The Professional Fan]

Well, except for your avatar.

lmao! I just got owned.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Re-read my post. Yes, if you've decided to become a member of Al-Qaeda, you're a zealot. And unlike eager members of the SS, these people are true believers with a messianic view of their actions. And members of Al Qaeda and Wahhabists have at their core--using your words--an irreconcilable and fundamental disagreement over how we live our lives.

I've made my arguments on this, and you have soundly ignored them. Agree to disagree.

I don't care how others live their lives, as long as they don't hurt anyone in the process. They care how we live our lives because they see us as polluting their culture and living the lives of infidels, therefore we must be killed.

I agree that most Arabs see western culture has infiltrating Arab culture, but more and more that is a generational divide. But really, I like how you chose to ignore the issues of our troop presence on Saudi soil and the Palestinian question (the most important ones in this case) and basically choose to rehash "they hate us for our freedom."

If that's their stance, I'm happy to send them off early to hang with their 72 virgins.

Right, I'm sure you are going to go do that.

The Taliban not only were one of the most repressive regimes on earth, but they allowed Al Qaeda to create their own government within Afghanistan. Therefore, they had to go.

Not to nitpick, but the Taliban hardly allowed al-Qa'ida to "create their own government." They gave them save haven, and integrated them into part of their loosely defined defense force. Unless by "government" you mean "terrorist training camp," then yes.

The world is a better place with them gone.

The Taliban aren't gone.

And you don't think that both the designers of the terrorist acts and the ones that strap bombs to themselves shouldn't be killed before they have time to act? We'll agree to disagree.

Well if you'd been paying attention to my arguments (it's clear that you haven't), you'd know what I think at this point.

Let me reiterate. The designers: yes. Kill them before they have time to act. They are the ones who have declared war on us and they are the ones who will not stop fighting until they are dead.

The ones who strap bombs to themselves: my argument is to find a way to prevent them from strapping bombs to themselves without killing them. This, of course, relies on the notion that these people aren't all dyed in the wool evil terrorists, one that you are clearly rejecting. So, I guess we will have agree to disagree.

Okay, show that the vast majority of families of terrorist masterminds share the belief systems of the terrorists they spawn. Mohammed Atta's family had no idea what he was up to. They thought he was still in Hamburg. There's a reason why terrorists videotape their last will and testament--it's a way of letting their families know what they're planning to do. In other words, most of them hide their beliefs from their family members.

Re-read what I said. I was arguing that the families of terrorists don't share their beliefs, but at the same time they don't ostracize them when they join a terrorist organization.

Your definition of terrorist then is clearly off.

Do you have a biography of every person who has ever blown themselves up? Or are they not terrorists all of a sudden?

Ah, I love this tactic. Your supposition is that all terrorists would grow daisies and go on a hugathon if only we wouldn't bother them, and I'm the one making generalizations.

Seriously, what are you talking about? I suggest that maybe not all mosques and madrassas "cultivate" terrorists, and you come at me with that? Are we having a real grown-up discussion or are you done? Christ.

 

[maxiep]

I've made my arguments on this, and you have soundly ignored them. Agree to disagree.



I agree that most Arabs see western culture has infiltrating Arab culture, but more and more that is a generational divide. But really, I like how you chose to ignore the issues of our troop presence on Saudi soil and the Palestinian question (the most important ones in this case) and basically choose to rehash "they hate us for our freedom."



Right, I'm sure you are going to go do that.



Not to nitpick, but the Taliban hardly allowed al-Qa'ida to "create their own government." They gave them save haven, and integrated them into part of their loosely defined defense force. Unless by "government" you mean "terrorist training camp," then yes.



The Taliban aren't gone.



Well if you'd been paying attention to my arguments (it's clear that you haven't), you'd know what I think at this point.

Let me reiterate. The designers: yes. Kill them before they have time to act. They are the ones who have declared war on us and they are the ones who will not stop fighting until they are dead.

The ones who strap bombs to themselves: my argument is to find a way to prevent them from strapping bombs to themselves without killing them. This, of course, relies on the notion that these people aren't all dyed in the wool evil terrorists, one that you are clearly rejecting. So, I guess we will have agree to disagree.



Re-read what I said. I was arguing that the families of terrorists don't share their beliefs, but at the same time they don't ostracize them when they join a terrorist organization.




Do you have a biography of every person who has ever blown themselves up? Or are they not terrorists all of a sudden?



Seriously, what are you talking about? I suggest that maybe not all mosques and madrassas "cultivate" terrorists, and you come at me with that? Are we having a real grown-up discussion or are you done? Christ.

Our disagreements are too profound to ever have agreement. You believe me to be a bloodthirsty warmonger and I believe you to be hopelessly naive.

 

[Denny Crane]

Whenever I have made statements associating Christianity with the evils done in the name of that religion - the Inquisition, Crusades, Holocaust, genocide against native peoples, witch burning, apartheid, Ku Klux Klan, up to the present day of murdering doctors, burning clinics, bombing the Atlanta Olympics and the Fred Phelps hate cult - invariably I am told that I am being unfair. That these people are either a caricature and not true Christianity, or else that I am seeing only one side of Christianity. That Christianity is Martin Luther King and Oskar Schindler as much as it is Torquemada and Nathan Bedford Forrest.

But when the President of the United States suggests that Islam is not just al Qaeda and burning girls' schools, we hear he is a traitor, soft on terror, at "best" naive liberal.

The Christian bible also promises paradise to martyrs. Christianity celebrates its martyrs, starting with Jesus. And there is no lack of intolerance written in the Christian bible.

So tell me. Why are the atrocities in the name of Christianity not truly representative of Christians but the atrocities in the name of Islam really representative of Muslims?

Hitler was into the occult, not religion.

The greatest atrocities in history sure are against religious people, not by them. There's the holocaust, and the godless communists of the USSR murdered 10's of millions of their own civilians, the godless communist of China (Mao) killed 40M of his own people, and you might consider the godless communist Pol Pot's deeds, too.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Our disagreements are too profound to ever have agreement. You believe me to be a bloodthirsty warmonger and I believe you to be hopelessly naive.

This is typical. I make reasoned arguments about the nature of what you believe (scary!) and you claim that I am making an over the top, inflammatory judgment about you in order to deflect any responsibility to think about what the fuck we're talking about.

 

[crandc]

It seems (though I'm giving him the benefit of the early doubt) that he's using Neville Chamberlain's appeasement playbook from 1938/39, and no one around his Trust Circle seems to be helping him with it or critiquing him on it. I'm personally rooting for him to show a bit more backbone, or arrogance, or "Big Stick" or whatever you want to call it...my life gets much more dangerous when playing soldier on the defensive.

This is a real good illustration of the limits of Wikipedia and why it is not and cannot be a substitute for knowledge. Don't get me wrong; Wikipedia is convenient for looking up a simple fact or definition. But there is a reason why professors generally refuse to accept it as a reference in college papers.

Chamberlain is one of those things that keeps getting repeated in the echo chamber, along with "Boston tea party" and "Atlas Shrugged" by people who can't be troubled to learn history or (understandably) wade through 1000 pages of lurid prose and learn the real philosophy of Ayn Rand. It gets endlessly repeated, quoted from Fox News and right wing web sites, with zero understanding. (Sort of like endlessly hearing "Sam Bowie" from idiots who know nothing about the 1984 draft but just repeat, endlessly, what they heard somewhere.) The echo chamber is why Obama can simultaneously be called a fascist, socialist, communist, Muslim, radical Christian, Black nationalist, elitist, empty suit and rock star - all pretty much mutually exclusive. The "idea" is that anything other than bombing or invading or imprisoning for life your opponents is "Chamberlain" liberal appeasers or at best very naive.

Chamberlain was not a liberal, not a pacifist and certainly not naive. He was a hard rightist, leader of the most conservative wing of the Conservative Party, who wanted alliance with Hitler because of fundamental agreements. Remember, in the early years, Hitler was not (yet) about genocide but concentrated on breaking unions, arresting socialists and communists, ending women's rights, censoring "decadent" art & literature, etc., measures supported by Chamberlain (and many would be supported by people on this board who post in this forum 20 times a day.) Chamberlain supported a grand alliance of Conservative Britain and Nazi Germany based on convergence of political views and (supposed) Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. He ceded Czechoslovakia, not out of naivite, not as a really crappy instance of practical politics, but as a gesture to an ally. It was not that he was naive in "trusting Hitler"; he agreed with Hitler.

If you can see a parallel with that and the current president saying the US is not at war with an entire religion, please show me that parallel.

 

[maxiep]

This is typical. I make reasoned arguments about the nature of what you believe (scary!) and you claim that I am making an over the top, inflammatory judgment about you in order to deflect any responsibility to think about what the fuck we're talking about.

Funny. I look at our positions and believe I'm the one making reasoned arguments. Perspective means quite a bit. It's the fact you believe to own the truth in this discussion I find so silly.

As for thinking about the problem, I've spent my fair share thinking about it. You are simply having trouble with the fact that we've analyzed the same set of data and have arrived at different conclusions. Good luck to you and your naivete. It simply demonstrates you have no regard for history or for how the middle-eastern mind works.

 

[maxiep]

This is a real good illustration of the limits of Wikipedia and why it is not and cannot be a substitute for knowledge. Don't get me wrong; Wikipedia is convenient for looking up a simple fact or definition. But there is a reason why professors generally refuse to accept it as a reference in college papers.

Chamberlain is one of those things that keeps getting repeated in the echo chamber, along with "Boston tea party" and "Atlas Shrugged" by people who can't be troubled to learn history or (understandably) wade through 1000 pages of lurid prose and learn the real philosophy of Ayn Rand. It gets endlessly repeated, quoted from Fox News and right wing web sites, with zero understanding. (Sort of like endlessly hearing "Sam Bowie" from idiots who know nothing about the 1984 draft but just repeat, endlessly, what they heard somewhere.) The echo chamber is why Obama can simultaneously be called a fascist, socialist, communist, Muslim, radical Christian, Black nationalist, elitist, empty suit and rock star - all pretty much mutually exclusive. The "idea" is that anything other than bombing or invading or imprisoning for life your opponents is "Chamberlain" liberal appeasers or at best very naive.

Chamberlain was not a liberal, not a pacifist and certainly not naive. He was a hard rightist, leader of the most conservative wing of the Conservative Party, who wanted alliance with Hitler because of fundamental agreements. Remember, in the early years, Hitler was not (yet) about genocide but concentrated on breaking unions, arresting socialists and communists, ending women's rights, censoring "decadent" art & literature, etc., measures supported by Chamberlain (and many would be supported by people on this board who post in this forum 20 times a day.) Chamberlain supported a grand alliance of Conservative Britain and Nazi Germany based on convergence of political views and (supposed) Anglo-Saxon racial superiority. He ceded Czechoslovakia, not out of naivite, not as a really crappy instance of practical politics, but as a gesture to an ally. It was not that he was naive in "trusting Hitler"; he agreed with Hitler.

If you can see a parallel with that and the current president saying the US is not at war with an entire religion, please show me that parallel.

Wow, you're as certain of your position as Chamberlain was of his, and you're equally wrong.

Firstly, it's not up to any world leader to decide how to split up a country. "Giving" Hitler the Sudentenland without input from Czechoslovakia bordered on a criminal act, especially when you represent a parliamentary democracy.

Secondly, Chamberlain appeased Hitler not because he agreed with him, but because he thought he could control him. As well as he understood domestic issues, he was completely out of his depth in terms of international issues. Yet, he was so sure of himself, he wouldn't listen to anyone.

Thirdly, the rebellion came not only from the Liberal party (who refused to form a government with him) but the anti-appeasement wing of his own party who was smart enough to recognize that appeasement doesn't work. That people who ask for an inch will eventually want a mile. The Conservatives were no friend of Hitler; they were friends of freedom. If you're silly enough to accuse the Conservative Party in the UK before WWII to be pro-Hitler, I'd offer as evidence Sir Winston Churchill.

Just another remarkable post, crandc.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Funny. I look at our positions and believe I'm the one making reasoned arguments. Perspective means quite a bit. It's the fact you believe to own the truth in this discussion I find so silly.

As for thinking about the problem, I've spent my fair share thinking about it. You are simply having trouble with the fact that we've analyzed the same set of data and have arrived at different conclusions. Good luck to you and your naivete. It simply demonstrates you have no regard for history or for how the middle-eastern mind works.

It's obvious we're both taking into account of how the Middle-Eastern mind works, we just have different ideas of how that is. I'm not going to say that I have more insight into this than you do, but I have my sneaking suspicions.

 

[maxiep]

It's obvious we're both taking into account of how the Middle-Eastern mind works, we just have different ideas of how that is. I'm not going to say that I have more insight into this than you do, but I have my sneaking suspicions.

Sweet. Prove it.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Sweet. Prove it.

Don't you remember the last time you asked me about my qualifications to discuss the Middle East? I remember you not replying.

 

[maxiep]

Don't you remember the last time you asked me about my qualifications to discuss the Middle East? I remember you not replying.

Nope. I guess it wasn't particularly memorable. Point me to that post.

 

[OddEnormous]

For me, those words describe the liberal mindset in a nutshell. Too many of them believe that, if they won't make war with others, others will not make war with them.

Oh dear....

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Nope. I guess it wasn't particularly memorable. Point me to that post.

I actually went looking for it, apparently it was over 500 posts ago. I even went to that other forum, but no such luck. It's not like I have a ton of homework to do (hah), so here:

I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to say that the Middle East is my area of expertise. However, it is what I focus on. To start, I was a Middle Eastern studies major for 3 years (before I realized it wouldn't get me a job) and took more classes than I can count on Middle Eastern history, politics, culture and language. Over the past 6 years I have talked to many, many Arabs (Saudis, Egyptians, Kuwaitis, Lebanese, Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians) in English and Arabic and count a few of them as my good friends. I've traveled to Syria and have talked to common people on the street about politics, culture and history (their three favorite topics after the local soccer team.) Nowadays, I generally try to keep up with the region through the news and documentaries and through my friends that live there.

If my sneaking suspicion comment was indeed out of line, then I apologize.

 

[BrianFromWA]

To start, I was a Middle Eastern studies major for 3 years (before I realized it wouldn't get me a job) and took more classes than I can count on Middle Eastern history, politics, culture and language.

Um, if you want I can get you hooked up with a pretty sweet intel gig. It would involve you being in a uniform, though, and liable to get dangerous. But that's a heckuva skill set.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

Um, if you want I can get you hooked up with a pretty sweet intel gig. It would involve you being in a uniform, though, and liable to get dangerous. But that's a heckuva skill set.

Yeah, I've gotten plenty of junk mail from the Army for language gigs in Iraq. I'm just not what you would call Army material.