IAP Political Forum

I stopped by the local mall on October 2 and entered Waldenbooks.  Then I saw this baby...


(http://g-ec2.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Wk5WfPS%2BL._SS500_.jpg)



Will you buy it? Ignore it? Buy it and burn it? Anything else?   ;D

I will ignore it.  As a comedian, I don't find her to be funny.  Quite boring and annoying actually. 

I made the mistake of buying "Godless" cause I was tired of hearing Republicans say I didn't like her cause I never read any of her books.

I got half way threw, making notes and highlighting sections to dispute later with people that bring her up, and then I put the book away in disgust. I just couldn't finish it. I now avoid ALL literature with her name on it like the plague. Sadly, Sean Hannity can't get enough of this bitch.

I think she is worth a laugh....

I've always wondered if she actually had any useful points to make or if it's all just liberal bashing.


They say you can't judge a book by it's cover, but I bet the guy that first said it ended up reading a lot of really dumb books.

That hood rat look like she got a adams apple.

Interesting thread.  I am often surprised that so few see AC as she sees herself, a catalyst for lefty outrage. 


Treason set forth a slightly overstated thesis, but was a pretty well documented recounting of where the american left stood all too often during the cold war.

zuk, I'm sorry, but that's just crap.

That goes for the Cold War and this war.

Anyone who even theorizes that the left "wants to lose the war on terror" or "commits treason" or "hates American troops" simply can't make a good point at all and resorts to attacking sacred pieces of America, like it's troops and it's pride, to make a point.

Ann Coulter is a bitch and a half who has nothing better to do than create conflict.

It's also ironic that she would say the September 11th widows were "cashing in on the deaths of their husbands" when she was cashing in on saying something that provacative.

There aren't enough negative words in the English dictionary for me to convey my disgust for this woman.

I will give your opinion on the cold war the weight it merits.  Is it that you think Alger Hiss was innocent and that the unfriendly ten were unfairly examined?  Or are you simply not very familiar with the period?


Sadly, you are mistaken.  Read Whittaker Chambers' book Witness.  It is illuminating.  Did you think Jane Fonda posed for North Vietnamese communist propoganda out of an over-riding affection for US forces?

The balance of your post is not responsive to anything I wrote.  Is this the thoughtful response of someone who has read half of one of here books?

You do understand that your reaction is the sort her work is designed to provoke from the left of center, right?

Sadly, my high school hired a foot ball coach to teach history and keep cost low, so I admit my education of history is poor, at best, especially about anything after WW II.

If history comes up in a debate I usually have to research it myself, expecially details like this.

My comment was about leftist politicians like Kennedy, not random officials who subscribed to leftist ideals.

Again, I was referring to politicians.

It just astounds me that Reoublicans can call Democrats "unAmerican" and get away with it. Neither party is doing what Americans want and for one to take a moral high ground in this argument just disgusts me.

Then to accuse Democrats of "not supporting the troops" like only Republicans serve in the armed forces.

I just get fed up with it.


How was my reply unbalanced?


I know this.

But you show me a leftist author that gets the same amount of attention for writing flagrantly disgusting pieces of literature AND THEN POSES AS A POLIICAL COMMENTATOR.

Al Franken and Michale Moore simply DO NOT COMPARE.

My only point is that too many people take here seriously and don't see her for the spin artist she is.

But you still let her make you angry?


Chomsky, Clift, Krugman, Vanden Heuvel and Alter are all odious authors and regularly comment on politics.


I agree that Moore doesn't compare well.  He is a serious propogandist.  Franken is pretty close though.


I've read little of her work in Treason.  I can tell you from a prior interest in the topic that when you get beyond the goading rhetoric, her basic research is pretty solid.

After WWII, parts of the dem party suffered an unfortunate tolerance for communists.  Other democrats like JFK were reliable anti-communists and were political allies of Nixon and McCarthy.  This isn't all ancient history either.  In the late seventies and early eighties, congressional democrats sold out democracy in Nicaragua and refused to support counter-communist groups.  Ted Kennedy early on proposed US support for the communists.

You may not like her style (painting all dems with one brush), but her message on this point is historically correct.

Personally, I don't care about her, except when I see numerous boneheads listening to her every word and taking it as gospel. She is loved by a lot of fat, old, rich white guys, since she's a skinny female that will actually talk to them. She indeed has no soul, and as I said, usually I wouldn't give a crap, if it weren't for the fact that she distorts the views of others for cash.

Very good point in re "the left". Neither the left nor the right are monoliths-each has much division and many factions (some of whom hate each other more than they do the other side!). Coulter is a cheap clown just like Franken, Moore, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Olbermann and the rest.

OswaldTheOsprey

Human weakness...


Hey! I like Chomsky ;) .

Honestly, I wouldn't consider him ANY where near the level of Coulter. I mean, at least Chomsky spreads his disgust across the political divide. Plus, I don't recall Chomsky being on TV in the last few years but every time Coulter comes out with a book she's shoulder to shoulder with Hannity. CNN even lets her on...

The other authors I haven't read.


Franken doesn't get the coverage that Coulter gets, in my opinion.

Moore gets it for his documenteries, but generally they aren't mean-spririted, which is more than I can say for Coulter.


Well LBJ can't be considered this way.

He ruined this country pursuing Communism in Vietnam. If any Democrat deserves the ire of Ann Coulter it's that guy... but then people would begin to draw too many similarities in policy LBJ and W. Bush.

Abraxas, would you agree that Code Pink is a lefty organization? If you do, then you can't deny that people on the left hate troops....

Now THIS is a statement I could agree with.  Far to often I see it stated that THE LEFT hates the troops.  Which is a stupid thing to say. 

This sounds like an SAT question.

First of all, it is not a "leftist" position to not like the war, so I wish we could all get over this mentality that America has.

Second of all, just because Code Pink doesn't like the war does not mean they hate the troops. And just cause you consider Code Pink a leftist group does not mean the rest of the left is in agreement with their tactics. What you can conclude is that Code Pink is stupid, crass, rude and severely misinformed... but not that they hate the troops. Very few people actually want to see more troops die.

You know who does hate the troops? Fred Phelps and his idiot church, that's who. And I can't imagine any group more "right wing" than them...

You'd be losing SAT points for that answer....
They don't hate the troops? Then why would they go to a recruiting center and call the guy who runs it (who they never met) a liar? Why would they write "Assassin" (spelled incorrectly because the group is uneducated) and numerous other things on the windows and sidewalks in front of the center? Why would they call soldiers killers? Why would they call American soldiers terrorists? Why would they try to run military recruiters out of town? Why would they say "We'll be coming in here every weekend to protest you until you leave"? Why would they deny that the American military has given them free speech and proteced that right?
They insulted and disrespected American soldiers. They hate soldiers and they hate the military. Their actions and words have proven that. To deny that is complete and utter partisanship.
I also don't think giving $600,000 to insurgents in Fullujah counts as "supporting the troops".

P.S. I never said it was a "leftist position to be against the war". But come on man, you're really going to deny that this is a lefty org?

Phelps in right wing? Why is that? Because they are religious? Nice stereotyping. I'm an athiest and right wing. Because they hate gays? Nice generilizations. I'm right wing, and I don't hate gays: I want them to have the ability to marry their significant other. Phelps isn't a lefty or a righty. The guy is simply a kook who wears a tin hat... He goes to military funerals and protests for heavens sake. You call that RIGHT WING?

Come on buddy. Have anything else to say?

(http://www.roflcats.com/images/0083.jpg)

Alright! You win... I give... I give...


More out of curiosity than anything else, do you have a link?


With all due respect Totino, you stand out amongst the Republicans... and you know that.

I'm not saying they hate gays... but a number of them want to limit the way they marry and while you may be an atheist, many Republicans are not. They can be quite religous, actually.

Also, I consider myself slightly conservative on several issues, so I'm not saying this cause I'm a liberal nutter.


Oh give me a break...

What's with the "tough guy" routine?

To draw a correlation between Phelps and the right wing because of one similarity is completely dishonest, especially when you look at how Phelps treats the military.

I'm sure you won't like the source, but feel free to search the net about this. It's everywhere... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1312014/posts

So then, in your head, you can not be a right winger if you at any point don't support the troops.  Makes it nice that then no one can be proven to not like the troops on the right wing.  As soon as they do something that goes against supporting the troops they are no longer in the right wing group.

Besides, each side has people that they are ashamed of, Code pink might be a leftist org. while the right has people like pat roberts, swift boat vets for truth (ha), and Ann Coulter.

Yes I would call Pat Roberts far right. But Phelps is simply a loonie who has no support (except for his brainwashed family).

It isn't simply about supporting the troops. It's about someone going and degrading the service of fallen soldiers.

Phelps is a repulsive schweinhund as our friends in Das Deutschland might say. As to supporting the troops, I would bring all U.S. troops home from around the globe. Let the rest of the world support their own troops. Do not confuse troops with policy. I do not support Bush's policies that does not mean I am against the troops-on the contrary, I want them out of harms way.

OswaldTheOsprey

You're spinning the truth, Oswald. Who do you think you are? Bill O'Reilly?



Actually, I really would like to know how being against the war became being against the troops... and how people just ate it up for a little while. Fortunately people are starting to look around a little so this phrase has mostly died away.

Well... except in Congress, but it's not like I was expecting better or anything...

Keep it pithy! ;) Unscrupulous war backers will use any tactic now that support for their cruel and stupid war has lost nearly all support.

OswaldTheOsprey

I'm assuming you understand then why lefties might take offense at the implication that they hate America, right? I'm a bit of lefty myself, and hate neither America, nor our soldiers. I don't care for the generalizations any more than you do.

The term "hate America" is hyperbolic.  But leftists tend to blame America first.  Usually without thinking about those doing the attacks.  I remember after 9-11 when the NEA issues structured lesson guidelines that actually attempted to justify the attacks on the twin towers.  So knee jerk was their reaction that they had this ready for the first anniversary and put out these "aides" for teachers.  I was offended by the generalization and stereotyping of a varied people.

1-How the US oppressed Muslim/Arabic peoples
2-How some groups responded by attacking the US.
3-America is intolerant, so we have a history that implies we deserve such attacks.
3-Western civilization is bad (without any critique of other systems of culture).

The NEA is leftist, no denying it and frankly, it builds upon the perception of letists in general.

I found it disgusting.  Are all leftists this way?  No, but many of those in a position of responsibility within the leftist system are.

To think that one day Osama Bin Laden woke up in his cave and thought, "I'm going to hurt the Americans... for ALAH," is ignorant, at best. Now, as I keep having to say when this topic comes up, we did not DESERVE September 11th and NO ONE is saying we did, but to think SOMETHING wasn't coming was an incredible oversight in the foreign intelegence industry.

Our policies in the Middle East pissed off a lot of different people, including our military support of Israel, our installment of the Shah in Iran, our military support of Suddam Hussein to fight Iran, our support for Turkey...

All these things create a very strong anti-American thought process, a thought process which inspires many radicals to strike back... VIOLENTLY. This is why we had the hostage crisis in Iran and September 11th.

So again, I have to wonder why people are surprised that radical Islam strikes back, especially when you look at the way we meddle in the Middle East.

Your ignorance is astounding.  bin Ladin's hatred of the west and western culture are what drives him.  US policy in the area is merely an excuse.  When asked if the US retreat from the Arabian peninsula would be sufficient for him, he stated quite clearly that it was not.  To Peter Arnette he said that the US pretty much must bow to Muslims anywhere.  As I have stated, your ignorance is astounding.

US policies have actually tended to help Arab nations and the rights of Arab/Middle Easter nations in general, whether it was stopping France from invading Egypt over the Suez canal crisis, or allowing Kuwait to throw off an invader or stopping Iran from developing a Persian hegemon.

The anti American feeling would be there regardless.

By the way the hostage crisis in Iran had more to do with dumb ass students takin the embassy than it did with the Ayatollah Khomeini (who was initially against the action, but went with the flow).

Look maybe you even think someone as wacked out as Hitler had cause for his action (he and Usama bin Ladin are both the same in their thought process and desire for Muslim "lebensraum" and their view of infidels/non aryans).

Wow, you might blame America first, but you do so out of the ignorance of reviewing a few talking points.

If we do good the Arabs will like us?




I posted this quite some time ago.


Interesting question, and I can already tell most of you are getting ready to hit that reply button to trot out the normal answers (even answers I normally give), you know, fanatacism, or the evil empire syndrome of the US, both sides have their talking heads, blurbs that generally are spewed back at us on a nightly basis in our thirty minute news flash of what is happening in the world. Lately I have been doing some reading. Here are some thoughts to add to those 30 second flashes of news.
For a number of years the US has been villified for several reasons, support of Israel and support for unpopular Arab regimes run by despots. This, many assume came to a boil on 9-11. Now while we know that anti Americanism is fairly widespread it really doesn't tell us why and its seems a bit misleading. I find it difficult to reconcile Arab and Muslim hostility towards the US with US policy. US policy has actually been very very pro-Arab and pro-Muslim so I believe that this anti Americanism is actually a product of self interested manipulation by key groups inside of Arab society. I believe it is important to identify such an action for the following reason:

If Arab anti Americanism is grounded in the domestic issues of Arab society and not the "evil" deeds of the US, then no amount of public relations or any real change in US policy will change that perception. As a matter of fact, changing US policy to meet this manipulation within Arab society will only make it worse. US attempts at meeting the internally designated evils of America will be seen as an "appeasement" of a weaker nation and encourage radicalism to go even farther.

Seems to me that for the past decade or two anti US sentiment has always been the "last resort" of despotic political regimes whose failed systems have tried to prop up their own standing and diverted attention away from their domestic failures. By assigning faults or shortcomings of their own systems on the US many Arab leaders hope to distract their people from the real problems, so instead of pushing for greater privatization, equality of women, democracy, a rule of law society, freedom of speech, due process, (note how lacking all of these items are in the Arab world), it is better to use the US as a whipping boy (think Schroeder doing this over several decades to win elections).

What is so interesting about this tact is how it flies in the face of reality if one were to look at the factual history of US policy. The US has always favored a policy in its own interests, but those interests have also generally coincided with those of Arab leaders and their people.

Kuwait

The US saved Kuwait from annexation by Iraq's secular dictator in 1991, mainly to preserve cheap oil to be sure, but it was still in effect a pro-Kuwaiti, pro-Muslim and pro-Arab. It would have been easy for the US to sieze Kuwaitis fields and demand lower prices or even political concessions. Instead we, well, we just left while we sought the highest level of political support for our actions among Arabs and Muslims.

Conflicts in general

When the US has become involved in a regional dispute (often at the pleadings of Europe) it is usually during fights between moderates and secular Arab forces or radical Islamist groups that even most Muslims consider too far in one direction. The US has generally backed groups with a strong claim to Arab or Islamic legitimacy. You can see this going all the way back to the 1950's. Look at Egypt, Syria and Iraq, while dictatorships friendly to Moscow they menaced Jordan, Lebanon and Saudi Arabia. Even during the 1950's the US wanted good relationships with Nassar and we even prevented his overthrow by the UK, France and Israel in the 1956 Suez War. The US continued to woo Egypt, we accepted Syria's hegemony over Lebanon and really during that period the US did little to punish state sponsored terrorism. The US even acted as a protector of Islam during that time since we viewed traditional Islam as a counter to secular communism which had, at the time aligned itself with radical Arab nationalism.

Still we are the bad guys.

During the Cold War it became popular for radicals to portray moderates as western puppets to establish their own legitimacy and even accused US backed moderate governments of being anti democratic or ignoring human rights while ignoring the actions of regimes like Libya, Syria and revolutionary Iran which had far worse records. And I believe that is part of the impossible dilemma for the US. When we help friendly governments we are accused of undermining revolutionary movements in Islam, but when we pressure those Arab governments into improving their actions in democracy or human rights (which we also do) we are accused of being imperialists (see Eddin Ibrahim on google if you don't believe me). During the 70's to the 90's whenever there has been a conflict between moderate governments and Islamic movements we did not take sides. In Iran's 79 revolution, the US wanted to Shah to stay in power but we instead restrained him from being tougher than he was. After the revolution (before the hostage crisis) Jimmy Carter attempted a conciliation with the new government, that unfortunately caused the radicals to seize the embassy with a sign that said "No moderates served here". The only time the US has ever really been involved countering an Islamic rev movement was Afghanistan.

Lets look at some other examples:

1-End of the Arab Israeli War in 1973 the US rescued Egypt by forcing Israel into a cease fire.

2-US saved Arafat from Israel in Beirut in 1982 and arranged safe passage to Tunisia.

3-The US was willing to support Arafat and the PLO while overlooking their history (our bad) of terrorism, anti Americanism, and alignment with the Soviet Union (you'd think we would learn after Castro).

4-Despite Palestinian backing of Iraq during the War the US sponsored a peace process with Israel, pushing for an agreement that would have created a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem (See how Arafat has pissed all that away).

5-Our support of Afghanistan against the Soviets.

6-Saudi Arabia from Iraq

7-Bosnia and Kosovo from Yugoslavia (Not Europe's finest hour for peace).

8-Muslim Pakistan against India

9-Muslim Turkey against Greece

10-Accepted Syrian control of Lebanon (a neutral action)

11-On a racial basis we supported Arab Iraq against Persian Iran (and believe me the Arabs like Persians only a few notches above Jews).

12-Arab oil tankers against Persian Iran (yes also in our best interest but remember they often coincide).

13-Somalia where the US is trying through humanitarian efforts (and no compelling state interest) to help a Muslim people under warlords (I really don't see any Arabic states stepping up to the plate on this one either).

14-When US oil companies holdings were nationalized by Saudi Arabia, Lybia and others we showed an amazing amount of restraint.

15-Soviet collapse would have been a golden opportunity for a purely pragmatic movement into the Levant.

16-We have not used our overwhelming strength to directly dominate the Gulf and gulf states.

17-Since 9-11 the US has also taken great efforts to show the world (and the US) that Islam and Arabs are not US enemies.

So really with the exception of our support of Israel, during the last 50 year in 11 of the 12 major conflicts between Islamic countries and non Muslims, Muslims and secular enemies, or Arabs against non Arabs the us has always sided with the former.

So why the kick in the huevos?

The real record is disregarded but why?

1-Well first I think while we fail to understand the region fully, Arabs failure to understand the US has been significantly greater. Seems the the Middle East always thinks the US wishes to conquer or wipe them out (part of the xenophobia adopted from the earlier Mongolian invasions), but also because its what they would do, if they could.

2-I believe that we also forget how tightly information is controlled in the area. Ostensibly Al Jazeera is the first Arabic news station not controlled by a state. So you can see its easy to manipulate the hoi poloi via constantly being fed false information without any real tertiary access to accept differing viewpoints.

3-Then all our actions are distorted by this tightly controlled media. The US is blamed for the suffering of Muslims that it protected in Kosovo and Bosia. Humanitarian aid in Somalia is shown as an imperialistic anti Muslim move defeated by heroic resistance fighter (ie see warlords that brought starvation to the country in the first place).

4-The more dangerous threats that the US protects them from is downplayed. Saddam Hussein looted Kuwait, vanalized it, threatened invasion, tortured and repressed his own people, chemical weapons guy, fired (wildly inaccurate) missiles against population centers, wants a nuclear weapon (so he can say "whos your daddy"). And with all that, Arab leaders in the Middle East tell their people the US is partially responsible for his actions.

5-There is that constant need for Arabs to reduce all US actions down to one single stupid item. US supports Israel, so all the US does is wrong, and all that anti American Arab groups do is right. Regardless of the ambivalence the US has in regard to Israel.

Note without number 5, you would still have four other key elements that make US policy almost impossible and untenable in the Arab world. Also note that this is generally domestically produced (relative to the Arab world) and usually outside US influence.

For radical Islamic groups anti Americanism has been an easy way to aspire to legitimacy and muster support. Generally these though have been rebuffed in establishing a theocratic states (exception being Iran), so they foster a type of xenophobia among different Muslim groups who see Islam differently and also against heathens in general who they claim seek to destroy Muslims.

Then again anti Americanism is just as useful for oppressive regimes. Instead of responding to demands for democracy, living standards, human rights, less corruption less incompetence, the leaders prefer to blame the US (see Palestinians for a perfect example of this). The governments do the "national unity or shut up routine" (and yes we do it to in times of crisis, but not for decades at a time and it almost never props up a presidency for very long). Of course by taking the anti US route, these groups also make sure their opponents don't use the same tactic. So while Saudi Arabia and Egypt receive weapons and protection from the US they have also promoted the ever popular US whipping boy scenario through various policies and through state controlled media (which is very anti American). Hey if America can be blamed for Iraqi deaths because of sanctions, who is going to remember the siezure of Kuwait? Iran uses the tactic to get the US out of the Gulf and to keep focus away from their two biggest weaknesses. 1-Iranians are not Arabs 2-Iranians are generally Shia and not Sunni. Domestic reformers are called US puppets and hence delegitimize them. Syria uses anti US sentiment to distract the people away from reforms that Assad promised (but quickly abandoned).

For the Palestinians its great cover for their own rejection of peace and compromise and a method of mobilizing the groups when necessary. It also gives the leaders themselves cover for rejecting US policies they disagree with claiming their hands are tied because of the passion of the people (course that never stops tough action when the leaders feel their own self interest is at stake).

Of course then there are the Arab anti American intellectuals and journalists who feel the need to vent their anger at government approved targets instead of risking personal life and limb by criticizing their own governments for its failures. Yes we are the whipping boy.

Now this is not to dismiss all anger towards the US. But lets be accurate here. The reactive violence of the middle east for their grievences is completely disproportionate. Arabs and Muslims have suffered less from US policy than most other groups. But none of these other groups comes anywhere near the level of violence and hatred the Middle East regularlly spews out. Arab states don't really have a basis for complaints. They have grown rich off the US economy and US influence over Arabic economy is limited at best, so they can't legitimitely argue that Arabs are poor based on US policies. We certainly don't make or break nations. Since the Pro-shah coup in 1953 there is not a single US covert action to change a Middle eastern regime. Only in Iraq has the US an attempt for an overthrow, and so far we are really doing a great job there aren't we? Fact is most other countries in the world, including Europe have a better case at being angry towards the US than the middle east, but you won't find Europeans caling for terrorist attack from their minarets.

Really it comes down to using the US to disparage good ideas that arise from the US. In essence anti Americanism is really a negative response to gobalization and westernization.

Finally there is an established false dichotomy. To portray the US as an enemy it must be made to be the bully. To ecourage challenging the US it must also be portrayed as weak. Radical Islamic groups and states are frustrated because the US, to a certain extent is feared and some even see alliance with us as a desirable outcome. If America is powerful why fight it and the people it protects? So radicals must somhow show the US to be both horrible and helpless, and that it will not do anything if it is attacked.

So if the US does little to respond to attacks anti Americanism is encouraged by the belief it is meek. Look at the key themes in Osama Bin Laden, Ayatollah Khomeini, Saddam Kussein and others, they do not say attack the strong America, but attack America because it is weak. Hafez Assad once said "It is important to gain respect, rather than sympathy." Bin Laden agrees once commenting that people always back the strongest. The Iraqi minister himself also commented that Western weakness in confroning Hitler encouraged Nazi aggression. Saddam has consistently interpeted US conciliation as proof that the US is weak, after all, if it were not so, why negotiate? (from Saddam's point of view). In a speech in Feb of 1990 Saddam has said the Arab world has three options.

1-Arabs can give up
2-They can wait until Europe is stronger and play Europe off the US
3-Unite behind a strong Arab leader that can defeat the US.

Guess which option is still foremost in his mind?

He went on to say that the US has shown "signs of fatigue, frustration and hesitation" in Vietnam and Iran and had quickly run away from Lebanon (see Lebanese Barracks bombing and its aftermath) when marines are killed. Experience has shown that if Iraq acted boldly the US would do nothing, he concluded. He still believes that to this day otherwise why pull back before reaching Baghdad?

So what should the US do in the face of this conundrum? With the benefits of developing anti Americanism on a domestic basis, how do we convince Arabic leaders not to do this? Even if the US withdrew support for Israel, pulled back from Iraq, Arab newspapers will not sing the praises of the US. It will however encourage radicals to even greater heights.

I think the first thing the US needs to do is understand that no public relations efforts, mea culpas, appeasement or policy shifts will do anything to change anti Americanism. The systems in place will simply adapt and change the content but not the tone of anti Americanism, so the sytems that produce this sentiment must themselves be rooted out. This includes Saudi support for the Arabic schools that forment these hate policies (masras I believe they are called). And more importantly the US should be steadfast in its support of its own interests and the interests of its allies which includes a support of Israel and developing stronger ties with moderate Arab states which should be "encouraged" to do more publicly to justify US support.

But hey, thats just me.

A book that brought this to the forefront for me was "Anti-American Terrorism and the Middle East", I highly recommend it and while it is not the easiest read it goes into a great deal more insight and analysis than is offered here.

Well, there isn't a shot in hell I'm responding to EVERYthing you said because I don't plan on being at my computer for the next 72 hours.

So since most of your point is in your first reply, I'm limiting my responce to that. I'll skim the rest, but I probably won't comment on it.


First of all, Osama Bin Laden isn't the only terrorist out there and the only person who dislikes American policy. Yes, he was one of the most sucessful at acting on his motivations, but not the first and not the last.

We can't stop people from hating us. It's their opinion to do so. But what we CAN stop is giving them reasons to act.

You say our involvement in the Middle East was nothing more than "motivation". Do you really think that's an acceptable way to explain away the premise that our involvement lead to September 11th? You dsimiss American involvement like it was just a fantasy.

You are flat out wrong.

The hostage crisis in Iran was a DIRECT result of our promotion of the Shah and the arming of Iraq to fight Iran. This isn't theory... this is fact.

Your complete dismissal of American involvement LEADS to events like September 11th and I'm amazed you can do so with such assuage.


Your cotton-picking history.

Have you forgotten Iran? Turkey? Israel?


There will always be people who dislike America, and I'm not saying there won't be. But there are people in Europe who don't like America and their not blowing up our sky scrapers.

Osama Bin Laden felt politicaly justified in his actions, which created a mass of anti-American support for his followers.

One crazy person is no threat, but when we do the things we do, we help those people.

Do you think we won't reap a future attack because of what the Iraq War has done to the region? Whether we stay or not is irelevent. SOMETHING will happen and to think it's just cause they "don't like us" is totally ignorant.


What do you think motivated those Iranian students to take Americans hostage, Baldar?


Your attempt to go off topic is noted.

This isn't about Hitler and those 2 people have many differing conditions before you can even talk about both of them in the same sentence.


And your ignorance is going to ensure that people like Osama Bin Laden are sucessful in the future.




I ask that you post that verbose essay about how the US is pro-Arab and pro-Muslim in the Middle East forum. I think you'll get quite a few interesting replies.

God forbid you counter the intellectual points raised.  Better to keep going back to minor talking points.  ::)


Usama bin Ladin isn't he only terrorist, but guess what, he was the one that planned and organized 9-11, the issue at hand, and apparently the point you forgot.  Most of the other terrorist networks did not work so well.  Why not scream at the Baader Meinhof gang too whie you were at it.

Usama bin Ladin was involved directly in 9-11, not other terrorist groups (though the most wanted terrorist at the time hid out in Iraq, Abu Nidal, but then you don't want to hear that either.  :-X ).


AS I have stated it is not a fact, and declaring it so simply reflects your limited doctrine.  The Ayotollah originally did not feel it was proper or worth the action, it wasn't planned, it was a group of radical students whose back ground tended to me Soviet edged education than anything else.



You will have to excuse me, cotton tends to be an Egyptian export.  More to the point, it seems you didn't read my post, and you certainly did not respond to it.  The issue was explained in my post.



He was never politically justified, again read my post.  One crazy person?  You mean like Hitler?  Was Hitler politically justified?  Please spare me the ridiculous method by which you revert to talking points.  My posts showed how there is really very little political justification.  ::)


No, their thought processes are similar, a feeling that the west was weak, that a dicatorship or caliphate must be established for the promised or chosen people, that any means to establsh it is justified, including genocide.  The only difference is Hitler was elected, bin Ladin hopes to be chosen as Caliphate.

But then someone who is ignorant of the issues, the culture and the religion of Islam wouldn't know that.


Thank you lord Chamberlain.  I am sure in your mixed up world Usama bin Ladin is incredibly successful.  ::)

I understand the criticism, and tbh, it's not unwarranted if it's directed at the one's who make the murderous thugs out to be some sort of freedom fighters.

Still, if we're going to excuse Coulter's claims that liberals hate America as hyperbole, wouldn't the same standard also apply to statements that Republicans are fundamentalist bigots?

I agree with that point.

Abraxas,
This is fact... um, ok.  I have a question though, if it is fact that the US arming of Iraq was partial motivation for the hostage crisis, how is that the hostages were taken in 1979, but Iraq did not invade Iran until 1980?  And the US did not start selling weapons to Iraq until around 1983?  Were the student just really prescient or what?

The second part shouldn't be there. The hostage crisis in Iran WAS in responce to US support of the Shah, but not weapons sales, as you pointed out.

But wait, I thought you knew it as A FACT  ;)

Or could your FACTS be wrong?

There are many reasons to be pro or anti US, but he very vast majority of US influence in the Middle East has actually been beneficial, as my post pointed out while you contemplate your navel.

Or could it be that I just confused my statement? I know such simple mistakes are beyond your vast intelegence, but simple mortals like myself aer susceptable to such lapses.

Classy. ::) ::) ::)

OswaldTheOsprey

He refuses to read the post.  I guess its an attention span thing.

Perhaps he is allergic to condescending attitudes.

OswaldTheOsprey

You wrote a 2 page essay. Exactly how am I supposed to comment on all that? Did you just plan on drowning the competition, Baldar?

If that were so, he would suffer from self induced anaphylactic shock

Oh, you can start by reading it.

I am sorry if you can only take your information at baby bite levels.  But lets be honest here.  You were all about how it is the fault of the US with your little sound bite philosophy.  I simply stepped in and stated, in a quite clear, coherent and factual way why you are wrong.

And all you can do is bitch because you can't process too much information.  ::)

I doubt he would be the only one on this forum.

OswaldTheOsprey

Really don't put yourself down.  You are merely pedantic.  ;D

Modesty forbids me speaking about myself. ;)

OswaldTheOsprey

This topic is a bit old. But, I recently found out something amazing....
Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

So is Richard Perle.

OswaldTheOsprey

Actually Tot, I just recently found that out too in another forum.

I can't possibly see why, though. I can't see him doing it except to mess with the Democrat's reputation. It would be like Cindy Sheehan registering as a Republican.

He supported Al Gore and Clinton!

Clinton enacted "don't ask don't tell".

Why would Phelps appreciate that at all?

I'm not trying to tell you why he does what he does. I'm just telling you the facts lol.

I understand. I'm just trying to disect his motivations.

Of course, the man is insane, so this is quite hard.

Phelps has a messiah complex, IMHO.

OswaldTheOsprey