Fighting Terrorism...

Sand

Now really, who should we fear, the U.S. or a few terrorists with some (homemade?) explosives and AK's???

I give up, who should we really fear?

Zombrex

esskay wrote:

Now really, who should we fear, the U.S. or a few terrorists with some (homemade?) explosives and AK's???

Both, the US for a long term systematic contribution to the destruction of stability in the Middle East, and the terrorist that this instability spawned.

Unfortunately blaming the US isn't going to do anything to stop the terrorism

esskay

Wicknight wrote:

Both, the US for a long term systematic contribution to the destruction of stability in the Middle East, and the terrorist that this instability spawned.

Unfortunately blaming the US isn't going to do anything to stop the terrorism

Blaming them won't do a thing, I agree, but a huge proportion of the world disagree with their blatant misuse of force. The U.S government removed Iraq from the offical list of terrorist states in 1982 to make Saddam eligible for U.S. aid, they basically funded his regime even AFTER he has gassed his own people. He was of use to them then as an ally, now he has become more useful as a tool of propaganda to be demonised to allow the U.S. to gain their first foothold right in the heart of the oil rich middle east. Once the U.S. corporations set up and start plundering the resources in iraq and the military bases are made permanent that target will have been met. The question then will be, who will be the next target.

If you consider the outcry during the Vietnam War and the affect that had on government policy, if the same sentiments could be aroused again people power might once again be able to have an affect. IMHO there are two superpowers left today, the U.S. and world public opinion. If the public can be scared in to submission there will be no one left to impede the U.S. quest for global economic, military and political domination.

Sand

Blaming them won't do a thing, I agree,

Glad that was sorted out.

freddyfreeload

ROTFLMAO!

You really think I didn't read an article I cited, just because it contains a contrary opinion? I can barely type from laughing so hard. Now I see why you don't bother to support your own arguments with evidence.

And then there's the... no. And then you say... no, I just can't do it...

Though my fingers are twitching with the need to respond to your childish, illusory, hair-splitting innanities, the certain knowledge that doing so would merely inspire more of the same drivel is enough to stay my hand...

And you quote Orwell... how quaint, as though Bush quoting Ghandi would make him any less the bigot...

ff

Sand

You really think I didn't read an article I cited, just because it contains a contrary opinion?

Yeah, I reckon you just glanced through it at best. The article put several large holes in the whole hypothesis you were proposing that AQ were actually a political action group. It had nothing to do with the IRA and at best examined the reasons for suicide bombing, not the reasons for AQs campaign. You might as well have linked me to the Kellogs company's financial report for the year 1967 for all it supported your claims.

Though my fingers are twitching with the need to respond to your childish, illusory, hair-splitting innanities, the certain knowledge that doing so would merely inspire more of the same drivel is enough to stay my hand...

Thank god for that, I was worried youd demolish my arguments with some devastating insight. As opposed to wasting my time with arguing over terminology.

And you quote Orwell... how quaint, as though Bush quoting Ghandi would make him any less the bigot...

We go back to the initial question, where I asked if you were able to view the world as anything other than a reaction to white house policy. And I quote Orwell because Im struck by the similarities of reactions to totalarian hatred on the pseudo liberal left that he criticised and that I see today. Orwell was socialist, but he was absolutely opposed to totaliarian creeds (Soviet and Nazi). Going by your rush to sell out the Islamic world to AQ, youd be trying to cut a deal with the Nazis, leaving them Europe in exchange for not bombing London, demonising Churchill as a vile warmonger for not accepting a peace deal with Hitler.

metrovelvet

This might be interesting: "Irish in Denial" about AL Q threats.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1863847,00.html

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

We go back to the initial question, where I asked if you were able to view the world as anything other than a reaction to white house policy. And I quote Orwell because Im struck by the similarities of reactions to totalarian hatred on the pseudo liberal left that he criticised and that I see today. Orwell was socialist, but he was absolutely opposed to totaliarian creeds (Soviet and Nazi). Going by your rush to sell out the Islamic world to AQ, youd be trying to cut a deal with the Nazis, leaving them Europe in exchange for not bombing London, demonising Churchill as a vile warmonger for not accepting a peace deal with Hitler.

Hitler, nazis, churchill, ww2, etc etc. Infantile garbage. The absolute proof that someone has no argument whatsoever.

Anyway, that Saddam Hussein guy (the new hitler, or is he now the old hitler) dealt with islamic extremists quite effectively and looked what happened him.

Ever seen Rambo III? What do you think about the US backing of jihadist terrorists against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Or Nato's support for these same terrorists in the balkans against Serbs (who were also labelled nazis iirc).

Funny how today's 'nazis' were yesterday's heroes isn't it folks.

esskay

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Anyway, that Saddam Hussein guy (the new hitler, or is he now the old hitler) dealt with islamic extremists quite effectively and looked what happened him.

Ever seen Rambo III? What do you think about the US backing of jihadist terrorists against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Or Nato's support for these same terrorists in the balkans against Serbs (who were also labelled nazis iirc).

Funny how today's 'nazis' were yesterday's heroes isn't it folks.

True, the U.S. removed Iraq from it's offical list of terrorist states in 1982 so it could provide "aid" to Saddam (and Britian was allowed to supply Iraq with weapons). This "aid" continued even after Saddam was accussed of gassing the kurds. So, basically the U.S. funded Saddams regime while it suited them and then demonised him and invaded Iraq when he was no longer of any use. There are other worse Dictators around than Saddam that are left unquestioned, Iraq happened to be virtually defenseless, important enough to be worth the trouble to invade and Saddam made an easy target for propaganda. The exact same could be said of Afghanistan and the Taliban. Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be the perfect "test cases" for the U.S. to illustrate to us all, how they can basically do what the like and ignore international law. Their propaganda was so successful that a lot of americans thought that the Afghanistan and Iraq invasions were both related to 9/11 Fair enough, Saddam was an evil fecker, but look at the instability this whole Afghanistan/Iraq situation has caused.

Sand

Hitler, nazis, churchill, ww2, etc etc. Infantile garbage. The absolute proof that someone has no argument whatsoever.

Well, Freddy questioned my use of Orwells quote and I explained why I think its relevant. Sorry if you find it uncomftable.

As for my argument, when you find a counter feel free to contribute to it. I can only play whats set out in front of me and Freddy spent most of the time arguing about the use of Jihadist as a term and arguing for some vague peace deal that he never nailed down into even broad terms.

Dont expect J'accuse in response if the quote above is the height of your views on the topic.

Ever seen Rambo III?

Not that I recall. If I did it didnt leave any lasting impressions. Why, was it a damning indictment of US foreign policy like Schwarzenegger's Commando?

What do you think about the US backing of jihadist terrorists against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Or Nato's support for these same terrorists in the balkans against Serbs (who were also labelled nazis iirc).

A short sighted policy that created long term threats down the road? Much like cutting a deal with AQ that would hope to buy them off at the expense of the Islamic world.

IT Loser

Sand wrote:

Generally because Jihadist terrorism is not of the same breed as that of the IRA or ETA or any nationally inspired terrorist organisation.

The IRA wanted to adjust/"improve" the system in NI. They wanted a small but constant stream of murder, misery and instability in NI, but they were cautious of backlash to "spectaculars". They recognised mass casualties [look at Omagh] as being bad publicity. They viewed themselves as a vanguard and wanted to win the Irish opinion over to them. Irish opinion could tolerate small scale misery inflicted by the bold boys of the old brigade, but exceptionally cruel or murderous attacks were harder to explain in the IRA mythology.

Jihadist terrorism is not about Arab nationalism, its heartland is in Asia, not the Middle East. Jihadists do not seek to regulate or minimise casualties, they seek to kill as many people as they possibly can.

Jihadists view everyone who does not support them as being appostate [muslims, including all brands of Non Sunni Islam and any Sunni muslim who disagrees with them] or infidels [anyone and everyone else]. Jihadists feel that infidels should be murdered without hesitation, and that the indefinite existence of infidels is not acceptable.

Jihadists do not with to alter or improve the social system. They wish to overthrow it, burn it to ashes and build a new humanity cast in their own image, in a new society. Tabliban Afghanistan is what they aim for. First for the Islamic world, then for everyone else. Anyone who objects is either apostate or infidel and thus *must* be killed by their warped cults idealogy.

That doesnt leave a lot of room for negotation - theyre on a mission from God, and probably as open to reason and rational debate as the Spanish Inquistion were on the concept of witchcraft and non Church approved religious views. Their idealogy is completely nuts, but theyve a proven desire to kill thousands for it and a stated desire to kill millions of people which cant be dismissed when biological, chemical and even nuclear weapons are on their wishlists and very possible for them to gain. People cant make the mistake that terrorists are all the same and can be all dealt with in the same fashion. Some can be picked off by negotiation, but I cant imagine anyone who views human rights as being universal as negotiating a compromise with Jihadists who dismiss the concept of human rights outright.

Word!

Just one disagreement: Inquisition of Spain was a domestic thing: Hell the Spaniards didn't even implement it in its true form in South America, a place where they pretty much had Carte Blanch vis a vis religious pursuits.

Islamic Jihad is GLOBAL. Always was, always will be. Till we smash it.

Peace

IT Loser

Sgt. Sensible wrote:

Hitler, nazis, churchill, ww2, etc etc. Infantile garbage. The absolute proof that someone has no argument whatsoever.

Anyway, that Saddam Hussein guy (the new hitler, or is he now the old hitler) dealt with islamic extremists quite effectively and looked what happened him.

Ever seen Rambo III? What do you think about the US backing of jihadist terrorists against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan? Or Nato's support for these same terrorists in the balkans against Serbs (who were also labelled nazis iirc).

Funny how today's 'nazis' were yesterday's heroes isn't it folks.

YES! yes!

Islamic violence in Bosnia, the historical Sins of Izetbegovic...the quest for a Muslim dominated State in Herzogovina...you are on the money and vis a vis the Bosnian issue, I will back you 100%

Little known fact:- Izetbegovic {note the "Beg" meaning overlord in Turkish} effectively slew Bosnia with his own hand. He tried to push his luck with Serbia and Croatia {Christians make up 60% of the Bosnian population} and hoped that the "International Community" would step in to save him before the Serbs and Croats carved up Bosnia.

He killed Bosnia...and the stupid Turkics recognise him as a Hero. He wanted to return to the good old days of Turkish Islamic Hegemony in Sarajevo. Turkic teachers, Turkic Lawyers, Turkic Doctors, and a Christian peasantry and workforce.

Somehow, someone, somewhere, wasn't having it.

Cue Slaughter.

freddyfreeload

Orwell was pro-war because he saw it as the catalyst for socialist revolution in Britain. Equally, he saw appeasement of Hitler as a surefire route to the ruling classes hanging on to what they already had. And you can bet your last buck that if Hitler had won the Tory party would have donned brown shirts en-masse and overnight.

Some selected quotes from The Lion & The Unicorn.

"It is only by revolution that the native genius of the English people can be set free."

"The fact that we are at war has turned Socialism from a textbook word into a realisable policy."

"War is the greatest of all agents of change. It speeds up all processes, wipes out minor distinctions, brings realities to the surface. Above all, war brings it home to the individual that he is not altogether an individual... If it can be made clear that defeating Hitler means wiping out class privilege, the great mass of middling people, the £6 a week to £2,000 a year class, will probably be on our side."

"The only approach to them is through their patriotism. An intelligent Socialist movement will use their patriotism, instead of merely insulting it, as hitherto."

"There will be a bitter political struggle, and there will be unconscious and half-conscious sabotage everywhere. At some point or other it may be necessary to use violence."

More importantly, this essay was written while WWII was already underway. It was a war that had to be fought. Britain was facing regime change, and rightly defended itself (and others) accordingly.

Thing is, this time round it's the EU and the US who are hell bent on colonial expansionism.

ff

RedPlanet

"Terrorism" is a tactic, not an army.
It cannot be "defeated".
There is no winning.

USA have made a mess of Iraq, so much so that they are currently importing oil due to shortages.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1314402006
Listen to their (USA's) rhetoric today, hoping to keep the oil wells out of jihadists hands.
I laugh.

IT Loser

RedPlanet wrote:

"Terrorism" is a tactic, not an army.
It cannot be "defeated".
There is no winning.

USA have made a mess of Iraq, so much so that they are currently importing oil due to shortages.
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1314402006
Listen to their (USA's) rhetoric today, hoping to keep the oil wells out of jihadists hands.
I laugh.

Iran has imported, and continues to import Oil, as domestic corruption and the inherently profligate nature of the Islamic Regime take their heavy toll.

Sand

Orwell was pro-war

Orwell wasnt "pro-war". What does it even mean to be pro-war? He was against totalarian idealogies that were sweeping Europe and seducing the intellectual elite with their promise of a new order. Hence 1984. He recognised that it was necessary to defeat totalarian idealogies, not to compromise with them or rehabilitate them as "progressive" as others attempted. He rightly held in contempt those who would sell out others to totalarian regimes to save their own hides.

Some selected quotes from The Lion & The Unicorn.

Save me, Ive read the essay...

More importantly, this essay was written while WWII was already underway. It was a war that had to be fought. Britain was facing regime change, and rightly defended itself (and others) accordingly.

It had to be fought true, but not because Britain was directly threatened. Hitlers interests lay in Lebensraum in the East, and Britains excuse for war lay in the invasion of Poland, not Britain. There was no threat of "regime change".

freddyfreeload

What does it even mean to be pro-war?

It means he supported the war once it was underway.

He was against totalarian idealogies that were sweeping Europe and seducing the intellectual elite with their promise of a new order.

I know, I've read about 80% of his writings.

There was no threat of "regime change".

Don't be so facile. If you've read the essay you should also be aware that it was written during the war in 1940, "To the tune of German bombs." Britain was facing regime change unless they defeated Germany. The L&U was a call to arms to Britain's workers to (rightly) resist any talk of appeasing the Nazis, but moreover to take the opportunity to establish a new populist socialist agenda.

If you don't see this it's because you've read this essay looking for one thing and one thing only, with a lack of understanding of its fundamental call.

ff

IT Loser

I've heard a lot of talk about whats happened and what hasn't happened since 9/11

Suffice it to say this: Americas mainland or Homeland hasn't been touched in 5 years.

What that does or doesn't tell us...I dunno.

But I think its safe to say that America has managed to carry some of the fight TO Islamists and that that has worked to a degree.

freddyfreeload

...I think its safe to say that America has managed to carry some of the fight TO Islamists and that that has worked to a degree.

Yeah, and Maggie took the fight to the IRA. It kept them busy, and swelled there ranks proportionately.

As for the US, their plan seems to be to take the fight TO Al Qaeda indefinitely. They don't have a plan for victory, no end-game, just on-going indefinite, "Global" war, or "Total War" as Bush and Cheney have called it.

People have to start asking if this is really what we want. And asking now is imperative. Do we really want 20 to 30 years of ongoing security paranoia, cyclical violence with atrocities and large scale death of innocents on both sides, greater destabalisation in the middle east, widening rifts with moderate islam, internal racial strife across Europe and the US, and so on? 20 to 30 years that must, and will, eventually end in western governments doing the very thing they now reject - talking.

If this is what you really want, keep on blowing the war trumpet. But don't kid yourself that the US can achieve, or even intend, a military victory over Al Qaeda.

ff

esskay

The fact is, this whole Iraq/Afghanistan situation has been created to allow the US to get a foothold in the middle east which the US government considers to be of stupendous strategic importance due to the massive oil reserves. Just think, once they have set up bases there they can use the "terrorist" issue to bully any country that won´t go along with their wishes and have troops and equipement just hours away to back up their threats. They have already established a precedent for breaking international law and invading a country, whats stopping the doing it repeatedly now? The propaganda machine will just generate another "threat" that need to be "fixed" US style

freddyfreeload

Here's some scary bedtime reading: Project for the new American Century

Statement of principles - Check out the signatories.

Their first strategy document.
"At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." PNAC 2000

Zombrex

freddyfreeload wrote:

Here's some scary bedtime reading: Project for the new American Century

Statement of principles - Check out the signatories.

Their first strategy document.
"At present the United States faces no global rival. America’s grand strategy should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible." PNAC 2000

All that is a bit old, there were interesting articles in last weeks Economist about how the neo-Con vision, under Karl Rowe, has largely failed, and has alienated a lot of Republicans.

I'll see if I can find an online link. While they certainly haven't gone away, I think the neo-cons vision of the world is strongly weakened by the increasing american public's hostility to Iraq

IT Loser

freddyfreeload wrote:

Yeah, and Maggie took the fight to the IRA. It kept them busy, and swelled there ranks proportionately.

As for the US, their plan seems to be to take the fight TO Al Qaeda indefinitely. They don't have a plan for victory, no end-game, just on-going indefinite, "Global" war, or "Total War" as Bush and Cheney have called it.

People have to start asking if this is really what we want. And asking now is imperative. Do we really want 20 to 30 years of ongoing security paranoia, cyclical violence with atrocities and large scale death of innocents on both sides, greater destabalisation in the middle east, widening rifts with moderate islam, internal racial strife across Europe and the US, and so on? 20 to 30 years that must, and will, eventually end in western governments doing the very thing they now reject - talking.

If this is what you really want, keep on blowing the war trumpet. But don't kid yourself that the US can achieve, or even intend, a military victory over Al Qaeda.

ff

So? We should "talk" to Al Qaeda?

How will we do that.?

They want wholescale annihilation of Western Beliefs/Ideals.

What do you want to do? Whittle them down to just Spain and France?

Please.......

Big mistake comparing the IRA and Al-Qaeda. Big mistake...they aren't even remotely similar. IRA initially wanted to repel British Army. When they failed {And yes, sir, they did fail} they just turned to their control of Heroin and Whores with a view to financing SF across Ireland.

In short, IRA are an Anglo-Irish concern. And, as time passes, they become more and more an Irish concern {by concern, I mean problem}.

Some failure by the English alright. The Irish Govt is up to its tits and there isn't a single Irish soldier in Belfast.

All this talk about how the War in Iraq has swelled Islamic ranks. Its such bull****. What Western Act swelled the ranks of Islamic Armies in 715 AD. Or 732 A.D. Or 1453 AD?

All America has done is bring this **** to its logical conclusion: Out and out daily realisation that we are in this for the long haul. Something Islam has been trying to tell us since it first arrived.

Islamists bomb, kill, conquer, multiply. Its what they do. You can roll over, or buy your aftershave after you get off the plane. Simple.

freddyfreeload

Wicknight wrote:

All that is a bit old, there were interesting articles in last weeks Economist about how the neo-Con vision, under Karl Rowe, has largely failed, and has alienated a lot of Republicans.

I'll see if I can find an online link. While they certainly haven't gone away, I think the neo-cons vision of the world is strongly weakened by the increasing american public's hostility to Iraq

They may have alienated some republicans, and if you ask me their vision was weak from the off. But none of that changes the fact that the neo-cons (including at least half a dozen PNAC members) are currently in power, and are therefore setting the agenda for us all. PNAC may not be new, but How long their project continues depends less on how the views of the Economist and Dovish Republicans than it does on the conservative/christian family values element of the US electorate, who seem happy to support what the PNAC call the Bush doctrine. Give it another 3 years and it may have evolved into the "Rice Doctrine."

ff

freddyfreeload

IT Loser wrote:

So? We should "talk" to Al Qaeda?

How will we do that.?

In the same way governments have previously, and successfully negotiated with terrorist groups.

IT Loser wrote:

They want wholescale annihilation of Western Beliefs/Ideals.

Really? I bet you can't find an actual citation to support this media-fuelled conclusion you've jumped to?

Curiously, I think you'll find that the many mainstream/moderate muslims believe the west wants the "wholescale annihilation" of their beliefs/ideals too.

Personally, I don't think either assumption is correct.

IT Loser wrote:

Big mistake comparing the IRA and Al-Qaeda.

It would be if I had, but I didn't. What I did compare was Thatcher's folly of thinking she could beat terrorism through force with the current Bush/Blair notion that they can somehow succeed where everyone else has failed.

You can kill terrorists, but you cannot kill terrorism. Every fanatic you kill becomes a martyr to his supporters, and another two or more step up to take his place. This has been demonstrated for centuries. And it's precisely what's happening now (including in Iraq)...

New York Times: “We are capturing or killing a lot of insurgents. But they’re being replaced quicker than we can interdict their operations. There is always another insurgent ready to step up and take charge”, the NY Times was told by a senior US Army intelligence officer.

IT Loser wrote:

All this talk about how the War in Iraq has swelled Islamic ranks. Its such bull****.

Well there are many, many, who would disagree with you, e.g...

The British Foreign Office
And over 80% of US security/terrorism experts.
And Canadian intelligence
And theInternational Institute for Strategic Studies
And award winning journalist Peter Taylor
And, surprisingly, 60% of Americans (scroll to page 2).
And Britain's mainstream Muslim communities
Not forgetting the London 7/7 bombers themselves.
Or the extremist European Muslims travelling to Iraq to join the insurgency.

But perhaps you know better.

IT Loser wrote:

What Western Act swelled the ranks of Islamic Armies in 715 AD. Or 732 A.D. Or 1453 AD?

The fact that Islam was spread by the sword should not mask the fact that Christianity was spread the same way.

IT Loser wrote:

All America has done is bring this **** to its logical conclusion:Out and out daily realisation that we are in this for the long haul. Something Islam has been trying to tell us since it first arrived.

Does this mean you favour the complete irradication of Islam?

If so you are guilty of the same accusation you level at Al Qaeda: Wanting the "wholescale annihilation" of ideals and beliefs differing from your own.

If not, then then you must accept that the Christian world has to find a way to coexist with the Islamic world. Al Qaeda are a product (albeit and extreme one) of that Islamic world, so co-existing with Islam means coming to terms with this extreme expression. That cannot be achieved with a gun.

Eventually, diplomats will have to address the issues, either with Al Qaeda directly, or with more moderate intermediaries who can represent their concerns. The only question is whether that process begins sooner, or later. Now, or after another 20-30 of inconclusive slaughter.

IT Loser wrote:

Islamists bomb, kill, conquer, multiply. Its what they do.

Yes, it is. It's also what the US and British governments do too (arguably to greater effect).

But that brings us back to my previous point. Where to next? Should we try wiping Islam out, or should we learn to co-exist?

The key to resolving any dispute or conflict is the ability to see things from both sides. Or at least that there are two sides, and that both see their own as equally valid. Big end, or small end, it's all the same egg. Once that essential point is grasped, everything else is possible.

ff

freddyfreeload

freddyfreeload wrote:

Does this mean you favour the complete irradication of Islam?

If so you are guilty of the same accusation you level at Al Qaeda: Wanting the "wholescale annihilation" of ideals and beliefs differing from your own.

If not, then then you must accept that the Christian world has to find a way to coexist with the Islamic world. Al Qaeda are a product (albeit and extreme one) of that Islamic world, so co-existing with Islam means coming to terms with this extreme expression. That cannot be achieved with a gun.

This just kinda jumped out at me, but where has this conflict between the Christian world and the Islamic world come from? Because as far as I can see, while there is an islamic world, there isn't really a christian world (anymore). The West isn't directly influenced by a single religion anymore, whereas the East is influenced heavily by Islam. To categorise the West as being part of a Christian world is part of the problem because you place the problem into a religious difference.

Not sure where I'm going with this, but it just didn't ring true. The Christian World? Does it exist? Sorry for going a bit OT, but I see that lowering the issue to a religious difference is part of the problem. We in the west don't have religion heavily influencing our lives, whereas the Arab nations do.

freddyfreeload

Deleted User wrote:

We in the west don't have religion heavily influencing our lives, whereas the Arab nations do.

I used the terms Christian and Muslim simply because the majority of US and Europe citizens are Christian (to varying degrees of devotion). However, I know this fails to include Jews, Hindus, and a miriad of other religions, and atheists (at least two of these categories apply to me, incidentally) so I'm quite happy to use the term West instead.

I think we all know what both terms mean, though neither is perfect. "Christian" for the reasons we've both cited and "West" because it doesn't acknowledge the Muslim populations within Western countries who identify either equally or to a greater extent with the wider Islamic Umma.

As to whether the West is overtly religious, I'd beg to differ. While secularism is advancing in certain parts of the West, the main Western protagonists in this conflict, the US administration, is overtly Christian.

Bush has said he was "told by God" to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, and to continue with the War on Terror. And the so-called American "Christian-right" vote is what's keeping him in power.

ff

Sand

Here's some scary bedtime reading: Project for the new American Century

That was written back in 1997 and it acquired its Protocols of the Elders of Zion cult status 5 or 6 years ago. God alone knows why though - US political figures in shocking admission they wish to remain powerful! Cue manical cackling and distant thunder.

So? We should "talk" to Al Qaeda?

How will we do that.?

In the same way governments have previously, and successfully negotiated with terrorist groups......I used the terms Christian and Muslim simply because the majority of US and Europe citizens are Christian (to varying degrees of devotion)......

Its like page 5 just linked us straight back to page 1.

The Christian World? Does it exist?

It needs to exist for moral relativists. Otherwise they might be forced to have an opinion on something. A terrifying prospect.

freddyfreeload

Sand wrote:

That was written back in 1997

Crushing point. I forgot every "Statement of Principles" written by any Neocon organisation prior to 98 is now worthless.

Sand wrote:

US political figures in shocking admission they wish to remain powerful!

Sand in predictably trite understatement... cue yawn...

Sand wrote:

[The christian world] needs to exist for moral relativists.

And for itself - Christianity was rather absolutist last time I looked. And you shouldn't mistake pluralism for relativism. Nor your own ethnocentricity for universalism.

Sand wrote:

Otherwise they might be forced to have an opinion on something. A terrifying prospect.

You're terrified of relativist opinion? Poor thing, never mind... go to bed with some Rand and everything will be absolute again in the morning.

ff

Sgt. Sensible

Sand wrote:

Well, Freddy questioned my use of Orwells quote and I explained why I think its relevant. Sorry if you find it uncomftable.

I think it's boring, irrelevant and an example of pure intellectual dishonesty. And then there's Godwin's law and all that.

Not that I recall. If I did it didnt leave any lasting impressions. Why, was it a damning indictment of US foreign policy like Schwarzenegger's Commando

Haven't seen Commando no, but Rambo III is worth watching for comedy value and is a handy illustration of what the general view of the US admin and western media was of the Soviet/Afghan war at the time.

A short sighted policy that created long term threats down the road? Much like cutting a deal with AQ that would hope to buy them off at the expense of the Islamic world.

That is what is known as a non sequitur. It is a matter of record that the Taliban nutters offered Bin Laden's head on a plate to the US. Instead the US/UK chose to invade Afghanistan and Iraq, enormously bloody and costly moves which have been gifts to islamic fundamentalism in terms of recruitment and propaganda. I find the inability of people to admit that this is reality amusing sometimes, but mostly it's just sad.